Politicizing Anger against Straight Males

The Outcome of 40 Years of Misandry?

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:36:00 +0000

Two or three things about the Norwegian horror:

There is a German Facebook group "I am conservative and I denounce the terror assault in Norway" ("Ich bin konservativ und verurteile den Terroranschlag in Norwegen"). Why does a "conservative" need to distance himself from such a monstrous crime? Are conservatives known for planting bombs in government buildings? Of butchering the children of their political opponents? What will they do next? Distance themselves from breathing because that mass murdering scum breathes -- sad to say -- as well? Those who excuse themselves accuse themselves.

Which leads us to the term "terrorist", which is as falsely as liberally (ha ha) applied here. That man is a mass murderer. Terror is something to establish fear and soften opposition to achieve a political goal within a defined framework. The IRA comes to mind, as does the Basque ETA or -- dare I say it -- Islam, and while multiculturalists and Gutmenschen stumble over their own legs in the attempt to euphemise the countless heinous deeds committed by Muslims in the spirit of Islam as as "isolated cases", conservatives jump the gun in anticipating obedience to declare that they have nothing to do with this mass murderer. Who would have thought so.

There is another aspect, maybe the most irritating one. 800 young people plus attendants, coaches and other carers -- there must have been a three-figure number of able-bodied men in their late teens or twenties on that island. The murderer had to load and re-load that gun again and again during those hellish 90 minutes. However, as far as we know, no attempt was made to overpower him. Different from the people of hero flight 93, the young people would even have had a decent chance to survive. Is that the outcome of more than 40 years of misandry, of denouncing and criminalising the best qualities of the male sex? Have they heard once to often the debased creed that "violence has never taken anybody anywhere"? God help us!

Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.

Hyperventilating Ego-Extravaganza

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:11:00 +0000

The old bag is at it again:

There is no peace and consequently, I (I, I, I !) have no peace. Every morning, I (I, I, I !) wake up to news about Muslims blowing each other up ... Yesterday, a friend ... told me (ME, ME, ME !) that Arab Muslims are taking over more and more Jewish Israeli land ... They are not allowing me (ME, ME, ME !) to have peaceful thoughts. Every week, sometimes every few days, I (I, I, I !) am informed that yet another Iranian woman has been ... Daily, the news from Afghanistan chills my (MY, MY, MY !) blood ... Thus, Muslims, among whom I (I, I, I !) once lived and whom I (I, I, I !) once loved, are giving me (ME, ME, ME !) no peace in my (MY, MY, MY !) older years. (The ones I (I, I, I !) knew and loved are either dead or living in exile in the West.) ... please explain to me (ME, ME, ME !) why Gretta Duisenberg ... is now suing my (MY, MY, MY !) friend and colleague the eminent Iranian-Dutch professor of philosophy and jurisprudence, Afshin Ellian, for calling her an “anti-Semite,” when she proudly calls herself an “anti-Semite.”

You get the point? The worst about the threat Islam poses to the West is that it causes Professor Chesler to suffer sleepless nights and doesn't allow her to have peaceful thoughts anymore. And now, finally, at last (we are relieved) to the purpose (apart from letting us know that the worst about the threat Islam poses to the West is that it causes Professor Chesler to suffer sleepless nights and doesn't allow her to have peaceful thoughts anymore) of this hyperventilating ego-extravaganza:

Leon de Winter and Abigail Esman are both asking us all to write on their blogs, in our articles, on our Facebook pages that we, too, believe that Gretta Duisenberg is an anti-Semite. In Dutch, de Winter says:
I invite all readers to support journalistic freedom and freedom of expression by writing ‘I, too, think Gretta Duisenberg is an anti-Semite.’
How many people can Duisenberg sue? Can she sue only one person if thousands, perhaps millions, are saying the same thing?

For Heaven's Sake! Almost exactly seven years ago, I (I, I, I !) and the Jerusalem Post called Gretta Duisenberg (and others) antisemites. Countless people must have done so as well before and since then. And now she (SHE, SHE, SHE !) needs to recruit "thousands, perhaps millions" to save her (HER, HER, HER !) "friend and colleague" from a fate worse than death? Give me a break!

In fact, a Google search for "gretta duisenberg antisemite" renders 398,000 results right now and a picture search shows countless pictures poking fun at the evil old Duisen-hag, even including the antisemitism-topic.

For Phyllis Chesler, the world revolves around one thing, Phyllis Chesler's arse. The fact that people take seriously what this lump of hormones blathers, is proof for the fact that feminism has won long ago.

Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.

Can't you keep her, Americans?

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 18:52:00 +0000

There is this perfectly idiotic bit from the Emory University website and I couldn't RESIST fiddling with it:

Margot Kässmann (Dr. Rev.), ex-lay-bishopette and as such former head of the Protestant* church in Germany, is culturally enriching Emory University during the fall semester, serving as Distinguished Theologian-in-Residence at the university’s Candler School of Theology, and as a Distinguished Fellow of the Claus M. Halle Institute for Global Learning, which lends a so far unknown meaning to the word "distinguished".

A theologian, pastor, prolific author and able to hold more booze than an entire troop of Russians, Kässmann is an influential leader in the international ecumenical arena and an enormously popular speaker in Europe, often drawing crowds in the thousands, specifically since she was caught in a drunk-driving incident with more than three times over the limit, which proves that we have become an undiscerning, sheepish breed with a knack for the sleazy.

“When I became dean at Candler, I issued her a standing invitation to join us for a semester at our rowdy stagettes whenever she could, and I’m delighted that she has accepted,” says Love, dean of Candler. “Candler faculty and students will be able to interact personally with an extraordinarily creative, charismatic and chadbandian Christian leader. Plus, with our new strategic emphasis on internationalizing the curriculum, whatever that is worth, the fit of having her on campus for a semester could not be better”, says Jan Love. Love is, who would have thought so, female.

Since Kässmann's election in 1983 as one of the youngest members of the board of directors of the WCC, she has broken age and (retch) gender barriers within the leadership of the Protestant church, and it shows. First in 1999 with her election as the first female bishop of the Protestant Church of Hannover — the largest worldwide, then in 2009, when she was elected chair (barf) of the Council of the Protestant Church in Germany (EKD), the governing body of 24 million Protestants. She enjoyed (you bet) a lot of media attention and even granted interviews about intimate matters to the sleaziest of all Caesarean media whores, BILD.

Kässmann’s February 2010 voluntary resignation from her roles as bishop and chair (barf) of the EKD after a drunk-driving conviction when she had always vocally condemned all forms of "excess", has not diminished her popularity, but, as it could be expected in a totally worth- and shameless society, enhanced it: She received several standing ovations at her first major appearance after her resignation, a Bible study for 5,000 people at the Ecumenical “Kirchentag” in Munich this May, which ought to teach Catholics what ecumenism is worth.

“I think the public see her as a leader who models honesty and integrity in the face of difficulty — a model of authentic leadership at a time when too few leaders own up to the consequences of their inappropriate actions,” simpered Love lovingly. Just imagine for a fraction of a moment what the slimy old bag would have said, had a Catholic bishop committed the same "inappropriate action".

Known for her administrative acumen, prophetic witness and pastoral ability to address complex dilemmas of everyday life (burp), Kässmann is the author of more than 40 books on spirituality, the quest for Christian unity, Christian social engagement and Bible study and about all other thinkable footling and fatuous attention whorish things with which a certain ilk of theologians, not all of them female, poisons the hearts and brains of the undiscerning.

During her semester at Candler, Kässmann will deliver lectures, participate in panel discussions, hen parties and preach, addressing such hilariously funny and utterly worthless topics as women’s leadership in the church, post-modern and secular challenges to the church’s mission, and Protestant spirituality, all of which are unbearable below a blood alcohol level of 1.5 o/oo.

Kässmann is the featured speaker at the following events, which are free and open to the public, which is self-explaining because otherwise she wouldn't attend anyway:

Lecture in the Luminaries Series, "The Challenges and Opportunities of Women's Leadership in the Church Worldwide," Sept. 21, 4:30-6:00 p.m., Cannon Chapel, Emory Campus. A reception will follow. Bring your own bottle because Margot will swig the lot. Lecture co-sponsored by Emory’s Office of the Provost, Luminaries Series, Candler School of Theology, la Veuve Clicquot and The Halle Institute. 

Preaching, preening and presiding while pissed, Reformation Day Chapel Service, Oct. 19, 11:15 a.m., Cannon Chapel, 510 Kilgo Circle, Emory Campus.

Preaching at Emory University Worship Margot Service on Reformation Sunday, Oct. 31, 11:00 a.m., Cannon Chapel, 510 Kilgo Circle, Emory Campus. Drinks will be served.

Lecture, "Bible, Prayer and Confession: Anticipating the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation," Nov. 16, 4:30-6:00 p.m., Cannon Chapel, 510 Kilgo Circle, Emory Campus. A reception will follow. Bring your own bottle because Margot will swig the lot. Lecture co-sponsored by Candler School of Theology, The Halle Institute and Johnnie Walker.  

I am not using "Evangelical Church", the literal translation of the German term "Evangelische Kirche", of which Americans are so fond. It is misleading, and so "Protestant" will have to do.

Now I was pointed at a recent bout of verbal diarrhoea of that woman, exactly one of those for which she is so widely revered in this country. She explains Americans how they ought to feel about the Ground Zero Mosque, which is, after all, ten whopping walking minutes away from Ground Zero. "Does this building of a mosque really hurts the feelings of Americans? Does it really have anything to do with the terrorist deed of September 11?" In a word: Don't make such a fuss, Amis!

How was that about the religion of the natives? It was considered inferior, dismissed, eliminated by forced baptisms, wiped out. Today there are Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists here -- and they all define themselves as Americans. [No, NOT ALL do that, Margot.] And yet there is an undercurrent: An American is Christian.

If there is a single politically correct issue, however far-fetched, in the vicinity, that woman will grab it and twist it to fit her own shallow, vain, slimy and sleazy devices.

She then goes on to inform us about the evil Pilgrim Fathers and their rigid understanding of religion, and goes on -- as a German SHE CAN NOT HELP IT -- to wax lyrically about the Koran burning of that "fundamentalist" pastor in Florida that never happened and how hurtful this was for, yes, not just Muslims, but specifically for us as Germans -- the entire old schtick of the child molester who thinks he is especially qualified for a job as a kindergarden teacher.

She left out, I guess yet and just, the slavery issue, and I spare you the rest, Americans. Frankly, I've got neither the time nor the stomach to translate the rest of that totally predictable, hackneyed, undignified drivel. Here we have a woman, a woman who holds a doctorate in theology, a woman who used to head one of the largest Protestant churches worldwide, a woman who has supposedly taught for two months now at an American university, a woman who IS BOUND TO HAVE spoken to Americans, a woman who still doesn't know how Americans, her hosts, think, feel and define themselves. Why? Because she doesn't give a damn as long as she looks pretty in the process.

In a word: a woman.

She is supposed to come back to Germany later this year. Do me a favour: Keep her!

Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.

The Potential of Attention Whoredom

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:28:00 +0000

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.

Cross-posted here.

The Answer to a Long-Asked Question

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 18:01:00 +0000

For a long time I am vaguely thinking about the reasons for the obvious gap between what I perceive as justified complaints from American men about the corrupting effect of feminism and women's "sexual liberation", about the disastrous consequences it has for their lifes and society in general, and what I see here, at my end. "Hypergamy" is a concept I always understood only theoretically and which I did not consider part of my culture. Now, at the most interesting Australian blog The Social Pathologist, which I found by chance, as one does, in the Internet, and specifically at the entries The Virgin Bride and The Programmable Sex (including the comments) I found at last an explanation that makes actually sense (plus an interesting sideline about the nature of Islam).

The Social Pathologist, who is a doctor, has a matter-of-fact attitude towards the female nature, backs up his points with a lot of data and is lacking the sneering, cynical and contemptuous attitude of Roissy and his ilk, something I find unsavoury and hard to tolerate.

Here is where I come in:

The_Editrix said...
"Some [pissant artist] burns a koran and it's art, some [non-Christian preacher where Christians are a minority] puts a crucifix in urine and that's a hate crime."

Point taken and yes, there are two sides of that matter -- theoretically. However, the fact remains that no embassies burn and no people die if somebody puts a crucifix in urine. Maybe it's a conservative thing to understand that "equality" isn't the answer to everything.

"The whole divorce end point is complicated by a whole host of variables."

SO true!

IQ (at least occupational status correlated to IQ) does decrease divorce rate........... in America. In other countries it increases it."

I'd wager that is, because American society is in many things lower middle class (or petty bourgeois, if you like that better) in its VALUES. ("What WILL people say!") From my experience -- I am a German who was partly socialised in England -- people above a certain stratum simply don't care what others say about them.

Fascinating discussion. Keep up the good work!

8:09 PM

The Social Pathologist said...
The Editrix, thanks for dropping by.

However, the fact remains that no embassies burn and no people die if somebody puts a crucifix in urine.

That's because Christians don't care. If they did the embassy's would burn. The only reason why the towelheads burn embassies if because they love Allah, we give God lip service.

I'd wager that is, because American society is in many things lower middle class (or petty bourgeois, if you like that better) in its VALUES.

It is both American society's strength and weakness. America probably cannot scale the heights of European glory, nor can plumb the depths of European wickedness.

people above a certain stratum simply don't care what others say about them.

So true, but it's a fatal flaw to have when the criticism leveled against one is legitimate. Sometimes its most beneficial to care about public opinion, most times its not.

11:52 PM

The_Editrix said...
"It is both American society's strength and weakness."

Indeed! I was trying not to be judgemental, just stating a fact. A lot of American traits we tend to sneer at are really strengths.

I find this blog most interesting because it seems to deal with the facts of female nature, different from the Roissy-ites, in a matter-of-fact and non-contemptuous way. Many of the complaints of American men, of which I have no doubt that they are justified, I find as exotic as I might find the the mating rites of some Australo-Papuan tribe.

To make an attempt at putting the problem, as I see it for the European society in which I live, into words: Women are not able to live their sexuality in a self-reliant and responsible way. They simply don't possess the ethical and moral fibre necessary for that and need the confinements of a TRADITIONAL marriage. The most destructive single cause for the decline of our civilisation is the sexual liberation of women. I see a woman at the root of virtual each and every marital and familial failure I am watching. I see sluttiness, idleness, vanity, lack of backbone, morals and common decency. What I do NOT see is "hypergamy". But then, when I first came across the American wedding cult, five-figure wedding dress, diamond ring, the lot, more than ten years ago in the Internet, it was one of those Australo-Papuan culture shocks as well. I am not saying that we are any better in Europe or Germany, we aren't, and the outcome for marriages and families is just as disastrous here. All I am saying is that the underlying motives are different, and that wouldn't be so if "hypergamy" were really a biological given.

I see this as food for thought and further discussion, not as the ultimate truth.

However, and on a different note: I'd like to strongly contradict your statement about Muslims. I don't think Muslims love their Allah, which is not the God of the Bible, as we love the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They just hate everything and everybody that doesn't fit into their debased world view. I strongly deny that we can learn anything from them. Any similarity with a traditional Christian view, be it the love of God, women's modesty or whatever, is purely pheno- not genotypical.

Off my soapbox now. ;-)

1:49 AM

The_Editrix said...
It seems I ought to have read your entry "The Programmable Sex" first. It goes a long way towards explaining the differences. If one assumes that women's sexuality does indeed reflect societal norms and peer group pressure, it is not so amazing anymore that American woman go for material gain and a diamond ring when looking out for a mate, and German women for (far more frightening) idealistic reasons. Don't take that as a flattering description. Germans are at their most obnoxious, even dangerous, when their sense for idealism is tickled. If I think of the failed marriages within my circle of friends and acquaintances, I'd wager that the adulteresses are very sure that they really "love" that man, "deserve" him and can make him SO much happier than his wife can, in brief, that they are doing actually a good and meritorious, even noble, thing. Few of those I have in mind right now have gained much financially, but, again, that doesn't make them in the least better than any American gold digger and the marriage and family they broke up is just as broken.

The same applies to the wives who leave their husbands because they are bored. They usually don't improve their financial status.

Reversely, you would be amazed for what German men are exchanging attractive, charming and even rich wives. The Roissy-ites with their scale of female attractiveness would be stunned. I am not a man, so I can only say that I haven't a clue what makes them tick. Admiration from the cook or groom they don't get from their wives? Maybe, but why MARRY them?

I have been thinking for a while now rather sketchily in that direction because the differences are so obvious to me when I have no reason to doubt the complaints of the American men. Thank you and this blog for helping me clarifying that.

4:13 AM

It seems, that every society has got its own aphrodisiac and that women always make the worst of it.

Hero Flight LH 181

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:31:00 +0000

On October 13, 1977, 33 years ago, flight LH 181, the Lufthansa Boeing 737-200 "Landshut" with 91 people on board, several children and five crew members among them, was hijacked by Palestinian Arab terrorists on a trip from Palma de Mallorca to Frankfurt/Main, an event that marked a new level of terrorist brutality and government response in Germany.

The hijacking was the means to the end of freeing eleven Baader-Meinhof/Rote Armee Fraktion (RAF) terrorists from prison. Crew and passengers had to fly several sectors to various airports in the Mediterranean and the Middle East under threat of death by guns or explosives. From Rome, via Larnaca, Bahrain and Dubai they finally reached Aden. Because Yemeni authorities had blocked Aden airport, captain and first officer, facing the fact of being almost out of fuel, managed to land, in a maneuvre of unique aeronautical mastership, the 30 meter long jet safely on a sand strip nearby. At Aden it was, that Captain Jürgen Schumann was forced to kneel down in the aisle, in front of his passengers and the crew, and executed.

After the cold-blooded murder of his captain Jürgen Schumann, first officer Jürgen Vietor had to fly the 737, which had just undergone a gruelling emergency landing, solo, to land safely at Mogadishu, Somalia, an airport, that had before, literally and metaphorically, not been on his, a Boeing 737 pilot's, map. Both "Landshut" pilots had a military background, Captain Schumann had flown Starfighters with the German Luftwaffe, his first officer used to be a navy pilot.

At Mogadishu airport, passengers and crew were forced to undergo an ordeal of almost twenty more hours before an elite unit of German federal police, the GSG 9, finally and successfully raided the plane, killing three of the four terrorists and only hurting one of the hostages. Somalia's dictator Siad Barre, hoping for German aid -- arms -- had allowed the deployment of the GSG 9 in spite of his Palestinian-friendly position. All the other countries, as recently de-classified documents show, had buckled under the fear of terrorism.

The heads of the Baader-Meinhof gang at Stammheim prison commited suicide only hours later, The body of Hanns Martin Schleyer, president of the German employers' association, who had been held hostage by the Baader-Meinhof gang, was found the next day. He, too, had been murdered -- execution style.

The Landshut in Rome. Italy refused to comply with German wishes and let the aircraft take off.

The odyssey of the Landshut. (For the translation of the captions many thanks to Anders Denken.)

On October 12, 2007, the Frankfurter Rundschau published a fascinating interview performed by Mark Obert with Jürgen Vietor, which I luckily happened to save, as it is now offline. I translate a few excerpts here. It offers a remarkable bit of insight of the mentality of this rare breed of elite pilots, whom we owe so much.

[...]

Are you frequently asked whether you never made the attempt to overpower Mahmud [the leader of the terrorists]

Sometimes.

Do you consider it a reproach?

No, I always tell precisely what happend aboard. One has to understand: We couldn't risk to antagonize Mahmud. There were 86 passengers we had to bring home safely. Our four hijackers defined themselves as freedom fighters, they weren't suicide assassinators like those on September 11. Our hijackers had two goals: The freeing of eleven prisoned terrorists, including those in Stammheim [i.e. the Baader-Meinhof gang members]. And they wanted to survive -- like we did. Based on this common ground we had to cooperate.

And to cope with the fear of the hijackers?

That too. Mahmud's fear played a decisive role at one point. Before we touched down at Aden ... something happened, which explains Mahmuds later atrocious behaviour. He wasn't able to fasten his seatbelt. He sat there like paralyzed because he was obviously scared to death. Therefore Jürgen [Captain Schumann] and I had to fasten his seatbelt. [Vietor explains earlier in the interview that they had to do that because a dead Mahmud bulleting through the cockpit in case of an emergency would have endangered the entire aircraft.] After touchdown, Yemeni military came to the aircraft straight away and talked to Mahmud, who was still upset. Mahmud then told us: "They are adamant to force us to depart. They have issued an ultimatum." Imagine the humiliation for Mahmud: First the thing about the seatbelt and now the rejection by those he had considered his friends. South Yemen was at that time a training center for the PLO. [Notabene that the Baader-Meinhof terrorists received training at PLO camps, thus reviving a long-standing tradition of cooperation between Arabs and Germans.]

Did you consider Mahmud's defeat as dangerous for yourself right from the start?

Mahmud had suffered a loss of face. I understood that he was bound to compensate for it sooner or later...

[...]

At that point you have been for two days in the hands of the hijackers already. Did you have a clear picture of Mahmud and the others?

Something like a profile? No. But that they, too, were highly under stress was obvious from the first moment: all the darting around, the shouting and the gun-waving. The first thing Mahmud did was to sport Jürgen Schumann's captain's cap. That's what he wanted to be, Captain Mahmud. After that, one had to assume that he was a psychopath.

Did you anticipate that Mahmud would kill Schumann?

I had to, because Mahmud had in the meantime informed the passengers as well that he was going to hold a revolution tribunal... In Dubai he had selected passengers for execution. Stupefying. Luckily, he didn't go through with it. But then he became more mistrustful and irritated by the minute because he didn't know what Schumann [who had left the aircraft under the pretense of inspecting the undercarriage which might have suffered through the landing on the sand strip, but, so it became known later, had gone to the airport building to plead for the people in the "Landshut"] was up to. That was an additional loss of authority on top of the other humiliation. I had a very bad feeling, but what could I do?

Does the question haunt you?

It is a non-starter, really. I don't know for sure what Jürgen Schumann would have done in my place, but I think he'd done the same. It was the sensible thing to do.

Feelings of guilt can exist in spite of rational decisions.

His death makes me sad.

The hijackers had thrown his dead body out of the aircraft the next day at Mogadishu.

That wasn't quite so. In fact, they've let him down the rear emergency chute.

Is this difference important for you?

It is a little bit less undignified.

Did you know Schumann well?

He was a young pilot, I was young. [Schumann was 37, Vietor 35.] We had first met before takeoff at Mallorca. And during the hijacking there was no opportunity to talk about private matters.

Do you sometimes think of what Jürgen Schumann might have thought on his way back to the plane?

I thought of it a lot, but without result. Now, after the statement of that General [Sheikh Ahmed Mansur, head of the unit that had surrounded the "Landshut" at Aden airport] I see that he must have known what was waiting for him. And so it happened. Exactly between Economy and First Class before everybody's eyes he had to kneel and Mahmud asked him: "Are you guilty or not guilty?" And Schumann said: "I tried to…" Then Mahmud again: "Are you guilty or not guilty". And again Schumann tried to explain what happened, but Mahmud didn't want to know it at all. He murdered the captain to appear as the resolute leader.

Herr Vietor, is it permissable to think that your chance of survival increased because of Schumann's death because now you'd become indispensable for Mahmud?

One can think that. One can ask as well the basic question why Mahmud murdered the captain and not the first officer.

He almost murdered you as well.

Before Schumann died, I was going to be shot dead twice. First, because I wore a Junghans watch with a "J" on the face and a company logo that looks a bit like the Star of David. Therefore Mahmud thought I was a Jew. The second time, because I was caught calling the Baader-Meinhof group, whom Mahmud intended to free, terrorists instead of freedom fighters. Then there were all the denied clearences to land, the emergency landing in Aden. Five days long it was about nothing but to survive the next hour, not to make any mistake, to keep an eye on the technology... Captain Schumann had just been shot dead when the ancillary unit went out. If one doesn't pinch off the battery pronto, one needs a new one. I didn't want to risk that. Therefore I went to the cockpit as fast as possible and had to step over Schumann's dead body, very carefully, over his legs, his arms, and over his head. Gosh, I couldn't even mourn -- the more as it was me who had to fly the aircraft now. Because I had no idea of the condition of the plane, I had at least to try and to delay the takeoff until daylight to have a better chance for an emergency landing in case of technical problems. I thought feverish how to play for time. First I asked ... for manual refuelling... then for weather charts, which won me ten more minutes. In the end, I had to take off in the middle of the night. Believe me, to fly an aircraft that had just gone through such an emergency landing was risky enough and then Mahmud topped it all by telling me that we were flying to Mogadishu. Mogadishu? I had no idea, where that was, I didn't even know where Somalia was. As a first officer on a 737, the farest I had ever gotten was Cairo. Lucky for us, on our maps, which only showed the 737-routes, the southernmost spot was just Mogadischu, two millimeter away from the bottom margin.

How was Mahmud after his act of violence?

Very focused. I needed a first officer. And finally he was where he wanted to be all the time, in the pilot's seat, with Jürgen Schumann's cap on his head.

How did you react to him?

We all behaved just right without thinking much about a strategy. We were cooperative without sucking up to the hijackers just as every instructional film recommends.

[...]

Did it help that you had to concentrate on the technology?

Very. Being ruthlessly exposed to those people was the most difficult thing I had to suffer because I like to be in control. But at least I had something to do whereas the passengers were confined to their seats, belts fastened, without information. They weren't even allowed to speak. And because the sunshades had to be down all the time they didn't even know where we were. Sometimes they were allowed to use the lavatory, that was all. That was much worse than what I experienced -- I believe.

[...]

What do you think [of the fact that the 20th- and 25th anniversaries of the "Landshut" hijacking went almost unnoticed, different from the 30th]?

Maybe the media are so eager because most of the witnesses will be dead in a couple of years. To think of how old the then chancellor [Helmut Schmidt] is now. Not to forget the discussion about the petitions for clemency of Mohnhaupt und Klar [Brigitte Mohnhaupt and Christian Klar were among the masterminds of the "second generation" of the Rote Armee Fraktion (RAF) and the crimes commited during the "German Autumn". The were detained, trialled and sentenced in the Eighties, Mohnhaupt to five terms of life in prison and additional 15 years. After the minimum term of 24 years, she was set free in March 2007 on parole. Klar was sentenced to six terms of life in prison and additional 15 years. 1992 he got an additional life sentence in a different trial and was released on 19 December 2008 after serving over 26 years of his life sentence.] ... This discussion has irritated me very much.

Why?

... When the consequences of terrorism are discussed, it's mostly about the consequences for the state. And now the state is supposed to show mercy because state and society have overcome terrorism. That may be, but have the bereaved overcome it? If somebody is able to show mercy it's the bereaved. I think that Klar and Mohnhaupt deserve more than just those 26 years. They ought to leave prison only in a coffin.

The discussion about pardon [for the Baader-Meinhof terrorists] has offended you.

Very much so. In spite of the fact that my suffering was limited. But I don't even want to begin to imagine how Jürgen Schumann's widow feels, or the widows of Schleyer und Buback [Siegfried Buback, German chief federal prosecutor from 1974-1977, his driver and a security officer, can be considered the first victims of the "German Autumn". They were murdered in a drive-by shooting on April 7, 1977.], or the children of the security officers. I don't intend to mention all the names here, there are so many who were murdered in cold blood. Okay, there may be good reasons to ask for mercy, but then the perpetrator ought to be deserving of it. Does Mohnhaupt? I don't know. But Klar, who is still adamant that the fight insn't over yet? How can he ask a state he is fighting for mercy? That is cowardice. Alright, the president has denied Klar that [in 2007, Christian Klar's mercy petition was rejected], but I fear that Klar will be released sooner or later.

What does a life sentence for Klar mean to you?

Satisfaction? It would go together with my sence of justice. That in any case. I will tell you something: Three of our four hijackers were killed by the GSG 9, and the only survivor, Andrawes, is suffering for life. I am glad for that.

She was shot during the raid and can't walk properly anymore…

… and is in pain. Yes.

Do you wish she were suffering from a bad conscience as well?

How can one determine anything like that? It's not measurable anyway.

[Notabene that Jürgen Vietor's witness account at Souhaila Andrawes' court trial exonerated her in many details because he chose to tell the facts instead of taking revenge.]

[...]

Did you ever have nightmares?

No.

[...]

Never been scared again?

Never.

Did you assess passengers henceforth? Who looks suspicious? Who is acting oddly?

No.

But you surely forewent the "Landshut", didn't you?

I'll tell you something now that is hardly believable. When a colleague asked me years later whether I've ever flown the "Landshut" again, I said that I didn't know.

What? Tourists have nicked pukebags from the "Landshut" and you didn't care whether you had to enter that plane or not?

Wait, it gets even more remarkable: I looked up my old flight schedules. My first scheduled flight after the hijacking was with the "Landshut". Of 80 possible 737-jets the "Landshut". I have proof of that.

[...]

The last hours on October 17 and 18.

Yes, things were coming to a head now. Day five, Mahmud was at the end of his tether. He submitted his last ultimatum. At 15:00 at the latest, the Baader-Meinhof group and the other terrorists were to arrive at Mogadishu or he'd blow us all up. Our last information was that the federal government wasn't going to give in. So they tied our hands behind our backs with the women's nylons, shoved us into seats and fastened the seatbelts. Even the children's seatbelts were fastened. Then they uncorked the duty-free spirit... and emptied the bottles on top of us. "So that you will burn better." Ah well... In the end, they applied plastic explosives everywhere. I had been in the military and saw at once that it looked like the real thing. And the detonators were definitely genuine: brass sheathing. When I looked at the clock it was ten to three.

May I ask a fallacious question?

Whether we didn't fight even then, right?

Is that the question you are asking yourself?

It has been asked before many times. I have always admitted that we let ourselves drive like lambs to the slaughter. But who has never felt a gun at his neck ought to judge very carefully.

What I really wanted to ask is whether it is true that in the face of death one seed a fast-motion playback of one's life.

That is a myth. I saw nothing at all anymore, only the hands of the clock. Now you have ten minutes more to live, now nine, when suddenly, five minutes before time, excited radio voices could be heard from the cockpit. Mahmud came running and asked me how long it would take a Boeing 707 from Frankfurt to Mogadishu. I started to do the numbers. Adrenaline works miracles. Imagine, I hadn't slept even a minute for several days. So I figured out: we are close to the equator, Frankfurt lies 50 degrees north of us, roughly 3000 miles, a bit of slope distance as well: roughly seven or eight hours. That was good because it was exactly the time they had told Mahmud via the radio. Then he cried joyfully: "They'll exchange! They'll exchange!" What a relief.

[...]

Then, when it was dark, the plane was raided. Your second birth.

One can put it like that.

The mission of the antiterror unit GSG 9 was triumphal.

Yes, brilliant.

Was it worth the risk? Just to not having to release eleven imprisoned terrorists?

I never gave it a thought.

You never gave it a thought? The state could have given in and set you free without such a risk.

That is a touchy point. Let me put it like that: Should somebody ask me whether I thought while we were in that situation that the state ought not to budge and I'd reply with yes, I'd lie. We have beseeched the chancellor to allow the exchange, we begged over the radio. Life is important. Who wants to victimize himself. But had I been in front of a TV set I, too, would have said that the state must not budge.

[...]

So you understand [Chancellor Helmut Schmidt]?

His moral dilemma, yes. Guilt and liability are hard to escape. At that time I have simply begged for my life, as Mr. Schleyer did.

The chancellor considered himself to be in a sort of war against terrorism and put himself, together with his crisis squad, almost all of them former Wehrmacht members, in a sort of combat situation.

But it was a war the terrorists waged against the state. That a politician taps into his experience as a soldier I can, as a soldier, understand.

What do you think if hostages are taken in Iraq or Afghanistan. To pay or not to pay?

What is the state supposed to do? To budge? How big is the danger to produce copycat crimes and thus even more victims in the long run? Exactly that is the question to which nobody has an answer. I am not presumptious enough to consider my opinion important just because of my experience as a victim.

[...]

I could have died through a [GSG 9] officer's bullet. Did this thought occur to you?

The government had even taken into account that some of us hostages would die ... It is bordering on a miracle that no hostage and no GSG 9-officer died.

It must have been an incredible ruckus.

The banging away seemed endless and if the GSG 9-boys hadn't hollered all the time we hadn't even known that there were Germans attacking. "Where are you pigs?" "Here, you pigs!"

They hollered that?

Believe it or not. And it felt good to hear it.

[...]

Did you ever talk about that to the GSG-9-commander, Ulrich Wegener, the hero of Mogadishu?

I met him recently for the first time since 30 years. It was very helpful because he was able to explain some details previously unknown to me. For example that at the ladders they got at Mogadishu rungs were missing.

Not a personal word?

Only technical stuff. Nothing deep.

What do you consider deep?

Something like questions of innocence and guilt, like those we just discussed. That is deep. In the sense of profound.

You close yourself off, in a psychological sense?

I don't have any secrets.

[...]

And still, many think you are a hero.

I don't. Heroes look out for danger. I was exposed to it. And even that by mere chance. On October 13, the day we took off from Mallorca, I was on standby when the first officer fell sick and I stood in for him.

Good God, how does one ever say "thank you" for anything like that?

He never said "thank you". I am still waiting for my bottle of bubbly. But seriously, I don't even know the colleague's name. I have never tried to find it out.

Are you sometimes amazed at yourself?

A little bit. And at this point I remember a peculiar thing. When I was with Mahmud in the cockpit, I heard scratching noises and suddenly turned around and saw an empty seat in front of the emergency exit. I thought I go and sit down there. Later I learned that the GSG 9 was watching us with night sights and hoped that I would move away from Mahmud. I don't believe in telepathy but that is truly amazing, isn't it?

Do you believe in luck? In fate? Or is everything mere chance.

We were damned lucky.

There had been children on board.

Yes, it could all have been much more sad than it was anyway.

Have you ever met Jürgen Schumann's widow?

No, never. There isn't anything about her in the media. She must be very bitter.

Mr. Vietor, you are retired. What are you doing now?

My partner and I do a lot of travelling with the camper.

You are divorced?

Yes, and believe me, that really hurt me. I was vitually depressive. It had nothing to do with the hijacking.

Sure.

Sure. I am fine now. I just regret that I can not live in Canada.

Nice and far away.

In Vancouver, wonderful city. But the Canadians don't want a pensioner.

So far Jürgen Vietor's account. What happened further to him and the other participants in the drama?

Jürgen Vietor and flight attendant Gabriele Dillmann 1977

Jürgen Vietor and Gabriele von Lutzau 2007

The "Landshut" served the Deutsche Lufthansa until 1985 and then went on an odyssey serving many more owners around the globe. Until January 2008 she flew for TAF Linhas Aereas under the registration number PT-MTB in Brasil. Since January 2008, after 38 years and about 30,000 trips, she is now placed as a monument of herself in a remote spot of Fortaleza airport. The name "Landshut" is still in use by the Lufthansa. Currently, an Airbus A330 is thus named.

Jürgen Vietor retired after 25 years of flying for the Lufthansa. In November 2008, he gave back his "Federal Cross of Merit", the Bundesverdienstkreuz when the former RAF-terrorist Christian Klar was about to be released from prison after having passed his "life sentence". "Setting Klar free is an insult to all of the RAF's victims," Vietor wrote in a letter to Germany's then head of state, President Horst Köhler.

The Bavarian town of Landshut named a street after Jürgen Schumann and the Lufthansa the building of their flight training school in Bremen. Different from Jürgen Vietor, Schumann can not give back the Bundesverdienstkreuz that had been awarded to him posthumously.

Monika Schumann is still, so it can be safely assumed, serving HER life sentence

From October 1964 until June 1965, Leutnant Jürgen Schumann received training at Luke AFB under Colonel James Jabarra. Memorial page here (in German).

Waltrude Schleyer's life sentence ended when she died on March 21, 2008 at the age of 92, more than 30 years after the RAF murdered her husband.

Chancellor Helmut Schmidt condoling with Waltrude Schleyer.

Former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, the man whose strength, authority and brains saw Germany safely through the most difficult time since WWII, the man who had to face the gruelling predicament of victimising a hostage or giving in to terrorist demands, was, at the age of 89, publicly reproved because his smoking habit was setting a bad example for society, which proves that we have got our priorities right.

Helmut Schmidt with Waltrude Schleyer at Hanns Martin Schleyer's funeral.

Souhaila Andrawes, the one surviving hijacker, moved 1991 to Oslo with her husband, Palestinian human rights activist Dr. Ahmad Abu Matar and their daughter until she was tracked down by the Norwegian police in 1994 and handed over to Germany in 1995. She was sentenced to 12 years and was released after 3 years due to ill health. Andrawes has since resided in Oslo with her family.

Andrawes, prophetically, performs the "victory" sign while carried away on a stretcher.

The Federal Republic of Germany, adamant in 1977 never to talk to terrorists again, pledged at a donor conference on December 19, 2007 twenty million Euro for the Palestinians, payable until 2010.

The long-standing relationship with and the care for the Palestinian people by the German mainstream has never been better.

This is a remake of an entry already posted in November 2008 at Roncesvalles and here. I cross-posted this at Roncesvalles.

When Oestrogen Meets Mohammed

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 10:38:00 +0000

The blog Islam in Europe reports via Al-Arabia:

Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi gave a lesson on Islam and copies of the Quran to a few hundred young Italian women Sunday as he arrived in Rome for his fourth visit in a year.

It was the second time the Libyan leader - who travels with female bodyguards and fancies himself a self-styled feminist - had staged such an event for Italian women, who were recruited by a modeling agency and paid an undisclosed sum to attend.

Michela, who asked that her last name not be used, told Associated Press Television News that three of the participants converted to Islam on the spot.

"It was a really beautiful meeting and went very well," she said. "He is very easygoing and he gave us a copy of the Quran. Three girls converted themselves to Islam during the ceremony. It was a beautiful event."

Other participants, though, identifying themselves as Roman Catholics in this overwhelmingly Catholic country, said Gaddafi had urged others to convert and had dismissed Christianity as unimportant.

Unfortunately, it is not really amazing that such "modern" woman, shallow, self-centered, silly and sexually and morally corrupt as they are, will fall for the "charm" of that disgusting old pervert. Nothing shows the danger of women let loose on the prowl better than the fact that they are the main enablers of the death cult that goes by the name Islam.

The Ehical Superiority of the Female Sex

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 22:04:00 +0000

While doing the modest research for the previous entry I found this:

It's a one-page website and the above is the sole content. It can be found at the URL:
http://www.howtogetyourexboyfriendbacktips.com. And no, I'll not go there, I or my computer might catch something nasty.

At my German blog I recently discussed an article in the leading German "teen mag" (Gosh, the word alone is nausea-inducing) Bravo (which targets at a readership between 12 and 17), where the young were informed how to deal with their "exes", another just as pukeworthy piece of vocabulary. Notabene that the strategies, all heavily relying on in-depth knowledge of the dirtiest of human sexuality, suggested for girls to apply to their ex-boyfriends are notably more fiendish and swinish than those suggested for the boys to treat their ex-girlfriends with. I wonder why. Not.

(Notabene that they were not castigated for THAT by the a certain faction of the blogosphere, but because they only focused on -- ta-daaa -- heterosexual sex. (I am considering to rename this blog, because I have come to think that not feminism, but the homosexual lobby may be the "most destructive single cause for the decline of our civilisation".)

In case you wonder whether there is a page http://www.howtogetyourexgirlfriendbacktips.com -- there isn't, I tried it. I wonder why. Not.

Praise to the Conduct-or

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:02:00 +0000

And if the young man had bitch-slapped her in return, as he ought to have done, all hell would have broken loose. Something like this will happen if women are setting the standards for behaviour. Men are emasculated because their best instincts are vilified and incriminated. Notabene that this didn't happen in America, but in a Catholic, European country. It's creeping in everywhere.

Hat tip: So much wrong.

The Compatibility of Western "Progressivism" with Islam

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 16:04:00 +0000

The entry It's Islam, Stupid! -- Redux at Roncesvalles got a couple of interesting comments. Let me summarize: Why do liberals, artists, atheists, homosexuals, 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.

The Peculiar Way of Women to Deal with Their Problems

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 08:48:00 +0000

F.C. sent me the following comment via email:

Hallo, I found your Blog through this and I wanted to comment that last one ... I was wondering are you a Female or a Male? Your Judgement against ... about Phyllis Chesler is really horrible (and I say that being a Female) - I say, Dr. Phyllis Chesler is just wonderful.

Anyway, I saw your Post about Nagla Al-Imam and her Statements: People recently talk(ed) about her, since she appearently converted to Christianity and got persecuted by the Authorities of her Country. About her, an Article appeared on PajamasMedia.

Thank you for approaching Islam/-ic/-ist Threat ... that's great.

I wish you a nice Day and Life.

First, thank you for your kind words, F.C. As for the points you have addressed:

Yes, I am female. "Editrix" is the female form of the male "Editor". Why are you asking? Would you expect a female to be more lenient in her judgement of women because she is one herself? If that is the case, I don't agree.

As for Phyllis Chesler, I think I made a good job of proving my point that Chesler is a hysterical egomaniac and grotesquely overrated shame to any academic environment, and that she is not criticising Islam as such, but talking about her (HER HER HER) personal problems with it. It's all in my various articles about her in German and English. Not my judgement is horrible, it's the plain truth. Chesler is horrible. You, on the other hand, just said you think she is wonderful. I would be seriously interested to learn why you think that. No provocation or sarcasm intended.

Now Nagla Imam: So evil Islamists gave her a bad name by doctoring (how?) what she said about Israel. I guess they did that because they knew what a worldwide outcry would ensue because the Jews generally and Israel specifically are so well loved everywhere, as proven by the massive protests against what she said.

(But sarcasm aside and let's for argument's sake assume they DID doctor her statements. The question remains WHERE THE OUTCRY WAS because we had to believe that she had really said that. The feminists' reaction, however: *CRICKETS*.)

I will say what I think of all that: No Muslim in a Muslim country will convert to Christianity lightly, so in that she is credible. I think it just proves that hatred of Jews is the spiritual staple of Islam and the West. She may have, as it was discussed at a blog, tried to give herself some notoriety to protect herself, but again, it would be a peculiar, peculiarly ineffective -- and very telling -- way of doing so. She may be simply a crackpot, but I don't think it's quite that simple. One thing I know: That a case like that will typically and enthusiastically be picked up by Pajamas Media, this great melting pot of a couple of liberals who don't like Islamic extremism (but have mostly nothing against Islam as such) and thus consider themselves "conservatives".

And to revert to the topic of this blog: I wonder whether a man would have dealt with his personal problems in a similarly less-than-straightforward way.

Thank you again for your opinion. Great food for thought!

If there is no man at hand...

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:01:00 +0000

... a suppressed Muslim woman will do the job just as well:

This hasn't anything to do with Islam, really:

A Calgary mother won’t spend a day in jail for killing her teenage daughter with a head scarf — a decision that has prompted outrage.

A national victims’ group, based in Toronto, is stunned by the suspended sentence given to Aset Magomadova by Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Sal LoVecchio on Thursday.

“I really strongly disagree. It sends a massively huge message to the rest of the country and the world that her daughter’s life was valueless,” said Joe Wamback, co-founder and chairman of the Canadian Crime Victims Foundation. Dear Mr. Wamback, no doubt you are meaning well, but you are talking about a Muslim family. To her, her daughter's life WAS valueless. You have ... HOW many Muslims in Canada? (It doesn't really matter how many exactly. If something like that happens, there are too many already.) Get an education!

“Even though this girl may have been a handful and trouble, that’s not the issue. Good to know! We are relieved, otherwise we'd thought that killing her is just the appropriate measure to discipline an unruly teenager. The issue is human life. Oh yes? Sentencing is not just about the criminal, but has to speak for the victim and to denunciation.” Gosh, how frightfully non-politically correct. No wonder nobody gave a damn.

In October, LoVecchio acquitted Magomadova, 40, of second-degree murder and found her guilty of manslaughter in the death of Aminat, 14. He placed her on probation for three years with several conditions, including taking counselling for grief, depression and anger management. And a trip to the Caribbean and an unlimited supply of McDonalds coupons for life.

The judge rejected an argument by Crown prosecutors Mac Vomberg and Sarah Bhola for a 12-year prison term, instead accepting the position of defence lawyer Alain Hepner, saying a suspended sentence can still meet the demands of sharia justice.

“At first blush (a suspended sentence) may sound like a get-out-of-jail-free card. It is not,” said LoVecchio. What else is it then?

“The court has said the act in question does not merit a period of incarceration. What the court has done is reserved or, to use the word of the statute, suspended judgment on that point for a period of time on conditions. If the conditions are satisfied, then the individual will not be sentenced. If they are breached, the individual will be brought back to the court to be dealt with further.” This is so debauched, so debased and rotten to the core, that it can only come from a judge in a liberal Western country.

Magomadova was charged after the deadly incident at their home the morning of Feb. 26, 2007, after Aminat refused to go to court to be sentenced for assaulting a female teacher at her school.

The devout Muslim mother claimed Aminat came at her with a knife in her sewing room, where she prayed several times a day. She said she reacted by wrapping the scarf around her daughter’s neck and twice told the girl to put the knife down before the teen lost consciousness.

A knife was found in the room, but the daughter’s fingerprints were not on it. But Muslims don't lie. Didn't you know that their faith forbids lying? It's peace, too. Oh yes, and mercy!

LoVecchio, who rejected a defence of self-defence, deemed the woman did not intend to kill the teen, even though medical examiner Dr. Sam Andrews testified that death as a result of such an act would have taken at least 2 1/2 minutes.

Jennifer Koshan, an associate professor at the University of Calgary’s faculty of law who researches family violence, said the vast majority of fatal family violence cases involve husbands killing their wives. I guess this totally useless and a-topical information is supposed let the murder of the girl somehow appear less gruesome. At least it wasn't a man who choked her.

“It’s relatively unusual to see a mother killing a child, especially an older child,” [sic!] said Koshan. “So it’s rare for the court to be faced with this situation. Maybe that influenced the judge in his decision.” Right! So the court said: "We have never dealt with a mother strangling her teenage daughter cruelly to death over a time of 2 1/2 minutes, so let's not deal with it at all!" What a magically wise solution.

Marilyn Millions, one of Magomadova’s sponsors with St. James Anglican Church, said outside court she was relieved “at the compassion and mercy that has been shown” by the court. Sorry, I'm not commenting on that. Words fail me.

“There were lots of tears and emotion,” she said. “If you’ve lived through it and you’ve gotten to know these people, it’s all in the context. It’s a lot different than reading a little bit about it. It’s a very different situation.” WHAT is a very different situation? Having to deal with a murderous Muslim walrus?

Millions also said it was the wish of the family that “people would know mental-health services for young people and help for their families will be improved, and changes made to the system, so that others who have to go through similar situations do not fall through the cracks.” So that woman killed her daughter because she fell though some "cracks"? It wasn't really her fault?

Hepner said his client was crying after she learned she’d be free to go home and agreed it was an appropriate sentence. You bet!

“The judge considered all the factors and it was a very lengthy decision,” said Hepner, who had sought either a conditional jail sentence to be served in the community or the suspended sentence. “He considered the background, psychological and psychiatric background. What else can a judge do in arriving at a proper decision?” Maybe use some common sense and simple human decency?

LoVecchio said he wrestled with the dynamics of the family in reaching his conclusions. The "dynamics" of that family are that of a Muslim family in the West.

He noted that the woman came to Canada for a better life for herself and her children from Chechnya, where her husband had been killed by Russian invaders and she had part of her foot blown off. And that excuses killing her child, no doubt. I don't want to appear unkind, but I'm afraid the Russians blew the wrong body part off.

“This was a family in crisis with events spiralling out of control,” he said, alluding to the friction between Aset and Aminat leading up to the deadly confrontation that morning. Well, whatever.

“It cannot be reduced to simply a case of mom choosing to kill her daughter as a form of discipline because she misbehaved. Quite simply, the events of that morning cannot be seen as a single isolated event.” Blah blah blah yabber yabber yack yack ...

And nobody even remembered that all this was supposed to be, too, about speaking for the victim and denunciation.

And, you know, that is not really about Islam, that's how Islam is EXPLOITED by people like that infanticidal hippopotamus.

But whatever. I, for one, will think twice in the future if Islam critics (myself included) are waxing lyrically about the victims of Islam who long so much to be free, weren't it for that evil, testosterone-laden culture. Not that it is all THAT new, mind you. A Google search Muslim mother kills daughter returns the following hits on page one:

Gary Robinson's Rants: Mother kills raped daughter to restore 'honor'
Mother kills raped daughter to restore 'honor'. I could hardly believe this story: Raped by her brothers and impregnated, Rofayda Qaoud refused to commit ...

Daughter raped by brothers, murdered by mother
18 Nov 2003 ... 'Thousands of women have been killed in the name of honor' ... Related stories: Muslim slays daughter in 'honor killing' ...

CANADA: MUSLIM mother attempts to 'honor kill' her own daughter ...
14 Jun 2010 ... A Montreal Muslim mother from Afghanistan is facing charges that she tried to kill her teenaged daughter, in what police suspect could be an ...

UK: Muslim mother hires hit man to kill Westernized daughter ...
4 Sep 2009 ... UK: Muslim mother hires hit man to kill Westernized daughter. After my adventures yesterday in Florida, it seems as if the only people who ...

The Google bot, befuddled, asked me at the bottom of the page: Did you mean to search for: Muslim father kills daughter

No, Google. I most definitely do NOT mean to search for that. Methinks that even a search engine can become a victim of the "It’s a very different situation” phenomenon.

P.S. Do you have any idea, Americans, what triggers off one of my recurrent "I-dislike-America"-bouts (it is applicable to the entire North American continent, by the way)? If your media calls somebody like that "a [insert location] mother". "Mom" is worse.

Had tip: Beak!

More Deadly Than The Male

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 11:03:00 +0000

Yesterday, commenter FPB posted Rudyard Kipling's poem in the comment thread of an entry headed Is feminism the root cause of America's (and the rest of the West's) problems?. It is indeed so apropos to the topic of this blog that I retrieve it from the comments dungeon and put it up here:

Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)
The Female of the Species

WHEN the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man,
He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can.
But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
'Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man's timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,
For the Woman that God gave him isn't his to give away;
But when hunter meets with husbands, each confirms the other's tale—
The female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man, a bear in most relations—worm and savage otherwise,—
Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise.
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.

Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
Mirth obscene diverts his anger—Doubt and Pity oft perplex
Him in dealing with an issue—to the scandal of The Sex!

But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same;
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.

She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
May not deal in doubt or pity—must not swerve for fact or jest.
These be purely male diversions—not in these her honour dwells—
She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

She is wedded to convictions—in default of grosser ties;
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies!—
He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

Unprovoked and awful charges—even so the she-bear fights,
Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons—even so the cobra bites,
Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw
And the victim writhes in anguish—like the Jesuit with the squaw!

So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
To some God of Abstract Justice—which no woman understands.

And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
Must command but may not govern—shall enthral but not enslave him.
And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail,
That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.

My thanks go to FPB. By the way, the entire entry is well worth reading. When I re-read it just now I thought: "Did *I* write that?" Thanks FPB for that experience, too.

Where are the feminists? Where is the outrage?

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 07:27:00 +0000

Found here at the eyeblast.tv blog.

It may be 2 years old but I think it’s emblematic of the situation. Watch the video again and let it sink in how chilling this is. A crazed anti-semite comes out saying that Muslim men should sexually harass and even rape Israeli women and what does this arab tv network do? They invite her on and interview her as though she were just another political commentator with a provocative position.

And the sad thing is that in a society where the call for mass genocide against the Israelis is a common event this woman’s disgusting insanity really is just provocative. In a region of the world where denials of the holocaust and calls for its renewal are common place perhaps the treatment of the call for the mass rape of Israelis as legitimate by a tv network isn’t surprising.

But, clearly, it is disgustingly reprehensible and yet another reminder of exactly what the Israelis are up against.

Notabene that this woman wears no headscarf, that she has had obviously a Western education and that the anchor wears a Western suit and tie. These are the textbook moderate Muslims the West yearns so much to embrace.

If this is two years old, where have the feminists been in the meantime? Where is the outrage? What else do we need to prove the utter worthlessness and hypocrisy of feminism?

Hat tip: The 'gator!
Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.

Men Who Deserve to Perish

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Thu, 27 May 2010 13:12:00 +0000

The following was triggered off by a discussion about cinematography and the fact that more and more mainstream films that do not feature homosexuality AS SUCH, include "gay sex" scenes. I don't even own a TV set, hardly ever go to the cinema and buy a DVD only if it's become cheap enough, so I am usually years behind, but I have never found that a disadvantage. However, I find this instant of yet another offputting "in-our-face" strategy of the "gay" lobby still worth a comment. Homosexuals are a small minority (although they are working hard on changing that) yet the heterosexual majority is FORCED to acknowledge their sexuality, once it's featured in mainstream films. This is not new but still topical:

DANIEL CRAIG is urging movie bosses to revolutionise the JAMES BOND franchise by including a gay scene involving the superspy in the follow-up to CASINO ROYALE. The heart-throb actor has also reportedly told studio chiefs he is prepared to film a full frontal nude scene to please both his male and female admirers. He says, "Why not? I think in this day and age, fans would have accepted it."

So the perversion and corruption has already gone far enough for a (presumably) straight man to want to appeal to his female AND MALE "admirers" (in a sexual sense). Now come, all you straight people and tell me that the thought that a nude display of your body might "please admirers" of the same sex does NOT make you puke your guts out! The time that such a display of my own body might have done that is not all THAT long ago not to be sure that I, for one, WOULD have puked my guts out. As an aside: The fact alone, that an ugly but otherwise insipid blonde weasel like Daniel Craig could acquire "heartthrob" status and be considred "rugged" speaks for itself. He is neither breathtakingly handsome like Roger Moore nor breathtakingly male like Sean Connery. And he has just an average physique as well, if that. How anybody who ever saw the pectorals and other assorted muscles of a Lloyd Bridges can find the remotest pleasure (whether aesthetically or sexually) in a nonentity like Daniel Craig is beyond me. Notabene that men in the past weren't afraid either to show that they had chest hair, different from the girlie- or neutered men of today.

In this context it ought to be mentioned that in America a population-wide decline in men’s testosterone levels during the last 20 years can be noted, that is not related to normal aging or to health or lifestyle factors known to influence testosterone levels. In plain English: They don't have an explanation for that phenomenon. This decline is consistent with other long-term trends in male reproductive health, such as decreases in sperm quality, increases in testicular cancer or cryptorchidism. The societal neutering of men has gone a long way already. No doubt, watching Daniel Craig in the buff will lower the average male's testosterone level by another 10 percent.

Good luck to you, American men! No doubt, deriving pleasure from the fact that you are really, really good boys and in all thinkable situations impeccably politically correct will, one day soon, give you more pleasure than the act of procreation. You have gone a long way already towards the brave new world of an Andrea Dworkin, whose vision was that men are reduced to sperm banks on two legs, whose only useful occupation would be the occasional contribution to the gene pool. Men who are too scared to preserve their own sexuality deserve to perish.

Posted with a slightly different angle at The Evil Style Queen and Roncesvalles.

The Slave Driverette of Modernity

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Wed, 19 May 2010 20:21:00 +0000

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 Roncesvalles.

What A Relief

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Tue, 18 May 2010 22:39:00 +0000

Some sanity remains. It really seems to be a hoax.

I still hope this is a hoax!

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Tue, 04 May 2010 10:09:00 +0000

This is so outgrossing that it defies belief. The report below is from the British rag "Sun". At least they are non-politically correct enough to call the sort of encounter described a "bizarre relationship". It's not quite as good as "swinish self-indulgence", but we can be grateful for small mercies. In the American media they'd probably call it "heartwarming" and "romance":

A 72-YEAR-OLD granny* is having an incestuous affair* with her own GRANDSON — and the pair are set to have a BABY*, according to reports.

Grey-haired Pearl Carter has allegedly began a bizarre relationship with her 26-year-old grandchild Phil Bailey.

Pearl, from Indiana, is now using her pension to pay $54,000 (£35,000) to a surrogate mother so they can have a child, say reports in New Idea magazine in New Zealand. That's wonderful! I wonder what has been her profession.

Pearl said: "I'm not interested in anyone else's opinion. Well, that's obvious. I am in love with Phil and he's in love with me. Soon I'll be holding my son or daughter in my arms* and Phil will be the proud dad*."

[...]

Phil is the son of Pearl's daughter Lynette Bailey — who the pensioner* put up for adoption when she was just 18, the magazine reported.

When Lynette died, Phil tracked down his long lost gran* — 46 years his senior — and they started their strange relationship*.

Pearl told New Idea: "From the first moment that I saw him, I knew we would never have a grandmother-grandson relationship. Gack! For the first time in years I felt sexually alive." And, of course, that's what matters.

The pair spent their first week together shopping, bowling and eating out. SO classy! And she remained continent for an entire week. Fancy that!

Pearl said: "I called Phil into my bedroom, sat him on the bed, and then I leant over and kissed him. Of course, the old bag started it.

"I expected rejection but instead he kissed me back." Maybe he has a penchant for "making love" to oversized leather bags.

Phil told the magazine he had the same feelings towards Pearl. What a poor, lost soul!

He revealed: "I wanted to kiss her there and then. My feelings were overwhelming. Vomit!

"I love Pearl with all my heart. I've always been ~~a pervert and~~ attracted to ~~saggy old leather bags~~ older women and I think Pearl is gorgeous*. Yuck! Now I'm going to be a dad* and I can't wait.

"Yes, we get laughed at and bullied when we go out and kiss in public Which proves that at least some people have not yet lost all their standards! but we don't care. Obviously not. You can't help who you fall for.*" That is what every sex offender says.

The pair have asked 30-year-old Roxanne Campbell to carry their child*.

Pearl said: "I am finally going to be a mum* and not forced to give up my child. How cute! Phil's going to be a great dad*. I never in a million years thought at 72 I'd be 'pregnant' and in love with* my grandson. Puke!

"I make no apologies and I believe God's given me a second chance." Please God, give me the strength NOT to comment on this. Please God!

Pearl says the relationship is not wrong after a friend told her about Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA) syndrome This sort of science will excuse anything, from sodomy to mass murder!, which occurs when close relatives meet as adults and find they are attracted to each other*.

She said: "I could now understand my feelings and realise they weren't wrong." Yeah, right!

Pearl was 18 when she fell pregnant with daughter Lynette. She was living with her Catholic parents Hey, was the pope's fault! And did he ever apologise for it? in Indiana and they insisted she give the baby away. They probably knew why.

They organised a private adoption and Pearl never saw her baby girl* again.

[blah yabber yack]

*Lower middleclass cute-ism alarm

SHOULD this been true, and I still hope it isn't, it ought to remove the last doubt that a society that lets women run loose is bound to perish. What I find encouraging, though, is the vast majority of scathing remarks in the comment sections, interspersed with a few "blah consenting adults Yabber Yack" ones.

A Few Words with American Men

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 07:48:00 +0000

At Lawrence Auster's VFR the case of a 35 year old nurse is discussed. She got "romantically" (this is probably my most-loathed Americanism among countless much-loathed Americanisms) involved with an Iranian asylum seeker seven years her junior. She tried to break it off with him after he failed to pay the instalments for the refund of the 3,000 GBP (no less) he stole from her bank account. For that, he stabbed her to death 130 times in the face and neck.

Again: Here we have a mature, educated and (judging from the one picture at VFR) very attractive woman who embarks on a relationship with an unsavoury grease ball 7 years her junior. She had been unfazed by the abysmal record of relationships between European women and Middle-Eastern (read: Muslim) men. She considered it a serious relationship. She obviously granted him access to her bank account. She even didn't break off with him after she caught him stealing, only after he failed to pay for the refund. One of the commenters at VFR says:

"I just don't get what is in the minds of these women? Is it really just overwhelming liberal/ ideological tendencies that draw them to men whom they should know will do nothing for them then bring probable heartache or even death itself?"

We traditionalists need to come up with convincing answers to these questions because there are legions of young, single men in America thinking the same thing and the Gamers are ready and standing by to give them what they want. The Gamers will say it is inherent to woman's nature to seek danger and excitement and male dominance rooted in biological evolution, so learn to be dangerous, exciting, and alpha, or else you are doomed to a miserable, single existence. At the very least, this is a coherent, rational sounding explanation to the average guy, and it has some truth to it, notwithstanding the broader materialist/nihilist worldview to which it appeals. With the Gamers confidently announcing exegesis on these types of phenomena we can't be left scratching our heads.

The Gamers never made much sense to me. They are trying to explain away the fact that American men voluntarily gave up their rights and their duty in the name of political correctness and are now whining about being discarded as "beta males". Worse, to justify it, they are searching for "a coherent, rational sounding explanation", while committing a serious fallacy. How can it be biologically "inherent to woman's nature to seek danger and excitement" in male dominance when human life had been at all times about raising children in safety -- freedom from physical threats and starvation, which is about the opposite of the female yearning alleged by the Gamers? Do unemployed Muslim grease balls fit into such a pattern of providing for the mutual offspring in every aspect? Good joke!

Yes, traditionalists need to come up with convincing answers to these questions indeed. What about a little bit of ... traditionalism? Forty years of "emancipation", forty years of being able to make "choices" have proven that women are, by and large, unable to make sane, reasonable choices. They need the strict guidelines of a traditionally organised society under male rule.

What went wrong? Social stigmata have been removed from our consciousness as unjust. Obviously, justice and fairness is a concept alien to the female mind. While the original idea was, for example, to de-stigmatise a poor little wench who had been seduced by one ruthless male predator and born an illegitimate child, womanhood in general took it as an invitation to have as many illegitimate children as they liked. While the original idea was to de-stigmatise divorced women -- How could one to be expected to know what suffering laid behind anything like that! -- they took it as an invitation to discard their marriage vows as irrelevant. While the original idea was, for example, to do away with something as evil as social, religious or racial boundaries, womanhood in general took it as an invitation to embark on a "relationship" with any bum who happened to catch their undiscerning fancy. I could quote more examples. You get the general idea?

Women need to be married young within their peer group, getting a divorce ought to be considerably impeded; and parents ought to get their guts back to tell their children: "THAT IS NO COMPANY FOR YOU!"

I, as a German, see quite a few typically American traits which have very probably aggravated the status quo and while I am trying not to be judgemental, this ought to be addressed. For once, I don't think the degree of materialism at our end is quite that high. That is not a good or bad thing per se, materialism is a healthy notion and can be, without doubt, constructive, and idealism extremely destructive. In fact, German idealism has led us disastrously astray, historically. However, recognising such cultural differences may be helpful and it just is a fact that good looks of a woman don't seem to be considered here all that much as a marketable item. I see friends and the daughters of friends who have, for better or worse, chosen men far below any reasonable expectations they objectively had. The only one who married a seriously rich man did it for love (and paid a high price for it), but by and large those marriages worked out as well as one can possibly expect in a society without rules. Then there is the American body cult. And while I admire the polish of American women (I have profited from it by buying as-good-as-new designer clothes at Ebay) it has a flipside as well. If some breast implants on two legs with remarkable credentials of American dentistry in what might once have been a pretty girl's face and an artfully dishevelled blond mane on top are considered a paragon of American beauty, something stinks. Not to speak of the organised sexual child abuse that goes by the euphemism of "child beauty pageants" and which for some reason makes me mad beyond anything else.

Does anybody seriously think that FATHERS want their little girls to strut their stuff like that? And can it in any way be considered ethical, or even useful, to base a woman's market value on that and JUST that?

Dear American men, get a grip on reality. If you want to save your home and the West, you don't need to be blown to smithereens by an Islamist bomb in some remote country. Go home and tell your wives as a first step that you expect a decent dinner, a clean house and a smiling face if you come home after a day of work providing for her and your children's livelihood. Tell your daughters that they are not (NOT!) to dress like sluts, that "sexy" is a no- and "popular" a rather doubtful standard. Tell your children that you expect them to keep up some degree of societal quality, that people are only very theoretically all the same and that Salsa classes are not the right place to meet somebody for a lasting commitment. And then go and give some spine back to your sons who have been in the meantime emasculated by generations of feminists (not all of them female) kindergarten workers, teachers, psychologists, therapists and other assorted scum of the earth. Just as a couple of first steps.

I, personally, think it's too late, but I couldn't keep my big mouth shut.

To Russia Without Love Redux

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 07:43:00 +0000

The case of the 7-year-old little Russian boy who was sent back as unwanted is, in a sad way, very interesting and eye-opening.

Artur Lukyanov (I prefer this version of phonetic transcription), the man who was hired to pick him up at the airport has a blog, which is worth reading. If his English is really self-taught (as the saying goes), it's remarkable. In an interview with CNN, Lukyanov tells how he had stumbled once before across a Russian-American adoption disastrously gone wrong.

Several years ago, he said he was hired by an American couple by the last name of Pavlis.

"They just wanted to see some sites," Lookyanov recalled. "They also asked me to drive them to a hospital to pass an adoption examination for their boy."

Lookyanov said he spent two days working with Irma and Dino Pavlis. He said he took them and their adopted Russian son Alex to McDonald's and ate with them.

"Two months after I saw them in Moscow... I learned that by accident this boy died," Lookyanov said.

A month after the adoption, six-year old Alex was dead due to blunt force trauma to the head, news reports at the time said. There was evidence that his adoptive mother had punched him in the stomach.

A court sentenced Irma Pavlis to 12 years in prison for manslaughter. She reportedly served five.

Lookyanov's brushes with failed adoptions have left him reeling, physically shaking as he discussed the cases.

There are additional details in the Internet:

Less than two months after his arrival, Alex Pavlis' promising life ended tragically. The 6-year-old was beaten to death by his adopted mother [sic!].

Irma Pavlis, 34, of Schaumburg, Ill., was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the December 2003 death. During her trial, she said she loved the boy but that he was mentally unstable and suicidal. Although she recently was sentenced to 12 years in prison, the repercussions of the case continue, both in the United States and in Russia.

Yeah, no doubt she "loved" the boy. I guess that's an "Illinois mom" to the American media, to whom no detail is ever too cheesy or too cynical.

But back to the case of little Artyom, which is full of fishy details, which may be, or may be not, attributable to lousy journalism. For one, is it so easy to get a 7-year-old Unaccompanied Minor on an international 10-hour-flight? His Russian passport, on which he allegedly travelled, was in a sealed envelope in his backpack. He couldn't speak Russian. Did he forget all of it during the seven odd months in America? He couldn't write, which implies that he wasn't numerate either. How could he then attack his "aunt" when she asked him to correct his maths? Did they teach him just maths and not how to write? So the adoptive "mother" sought advice from psychologists but never arranged for the boy to meet one? The adoption agency contacted the woman in March when everything seemed to be fine with the child. She then even expressed wishes to adopt a second child. The ten-year old boy Logan is sometimes refered to as Hansen's child, then again as her sister's child.

I guess for some time to come I'll will be quite sick at the sound of words and idioms like "I don't want to judge", "love", "mother", "mom", "I can empathize with", "wants to have a family/child", "my heart goes out", "our thoughts and prayers", "tragic", "heartbreaking" and some more.

Tough luck he isn't a puppy!

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:47:00 +0000

By now, everybody will have heard of the 7-year-old adopted boy who was placed on a flight back to Moscow by this "Tennessee mom". (Don't get me started now on disgusting American euphemisms!)

The boy may well have been a violent nutcase and she can blame the adoption agency and the Russian officials for dishonesty as much as she wants. They probably were. I am not even insisting that it was her duty to undergo therapy and all the excruciating processes other, responsible, adoptive parents choose to undergo. (Well, it WAS her duty, but I am not insisting on it for argument's sake.) However, nothing changes the fact that she put a helpless, troubled little boy alone on a 10-hour- flight and arranged for a stranger she found via the Internet, and who could have very well have been a fiend , to pick him up at the other end to drop him off like an broken bit of merchandise. So the child was too much fuss for her. Alright, but ist seems that even getting rid of him in a halfway decent manner was too much fuss for her.

I did quite an extensive Internet search and I found countless sheer and undiluted expressions of disgust at the "adoptive mother's" behaviour, even more expressing stern disapproval but granted her "good intentions" in the first place and that they could relate to her because they experienced similar problems with their own adopted child and -- worst -- those "I don't think we can judge unless we have gone through the same blah blah blah ..." relativists. Right! I guess you can't judge a mass murderer or a paederast until you've killed a few and raped at least one child. Gosh, DO I hate "ordinary people".

Neighbours in the rural town of 20,000 said Hansen [the adoptive mother] was a loving mother who found she could not cope with a violent child.

Linda Austin said: 'We knew there were problems but she tried her best. I think she is getting the raw end of the deal.'

Another neighbour added: 'Torry desperately wanted a child of her own, but she just found this boy uncontrollable.'

I wonder what they'd said had the skank abandoned a puppy. We've yet to see a snappy slogan like "A child is for life, not just Christmas".

However, what I did NOT see in the course of my Internet search, was one single challenge of the fact that here we have a case of a "single mom" (Did I say that you oughtn't to get me started on disgusting American euphemisms?) as an "adoptive parent". Incidentally, previous adoption failures have increased Russian officials' wariness of adoptions to the U.S. In 2006, Peggy Sue Hilt of Manassas, Virginia, was sentenced to 25 years in prison after being convicted of fatally beating a 2-year-old girl adopted from Siberia and 2008, Kimberly Emelyantsev of Tooele, Utah, was sentenced to 15 years after pleading guilty to killing a Russian infant in her care.

Does anybody see a pattern there?

Or here?

A Florida woman left her adopted Guatemalan kindergartener in the airport immediately after bringing him to the United States (he remained in foster care until she sought, and regained, custody of him 16 months later).

I guess we can at least be grateful that they didn't call her a "Florida mom".

What can one expect from a woman with a crappy name like "Torry Ann"? (I sometimes think that every single cliché is true.) What from an "adoptive grandmother" who makes "cute" statements like the one saying that her daughter "only wanted to have a family". And nobody laughs that old bag out of the door and tells her, as her daughter isn't married, that, no, she can't.

Is there really a scenario all that easily imaginable, where a married couple would do that to a child? That they would have rejected professional help? That they would have come forward with simpering bullshit like they "only wanted to have a family"? As if that would explain, let alone excuse, anything.

Women simply don't have the moral fibre, strength, reliability, integrity, maturity and devotion to be trusted with the sole care for a child. It's bad enough what they are doing to their birth children, so it's sheer and utter madness to indulge their whim "to have a family" and let them adopt. If they are unable to form a stable relationship with a man, how can they be trusted to form one with a child?

America, you have a lot of problems. You have a radical leftwinger in the White House, massive economic issues and God knows what consequences your immigration policy will have. But the worst you are doing to yourself is feminism. Why? Because it goes straight at the heart of any intact society -- the family.

What happened to the little boy is bad enough, but what is worse is the fact that nobody seems to notice that adoption rights for unmarried mothers stink.

Surprised, Anybody?

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:59:00 +0000

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 Roncesvalles.

A Match Made in Heaven Useless Exercise

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:47:00 +0000

The internationally known, controversial historian and media personality Niall Ferguson has broken up with his wife of 16 years after a string of adulterous affairs. The 45-year-old Harvard professor has left former newspaper editor Susan Douglas, who had enabled his breakthrough in the media and with whom he has three children from the age of nine to fourteen, for the Somalian-born Islam-critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali, so the Mail informs us earlier this month. And:

The pair are understood to have met at Time magazine’s prestigious 100 Most Influential People In The World party in New York last May. Ferguson and Ms Hirsi Ali, who have both been on the list, were introduced by Belinda Luscombe, the magazine’s art editor.

[...]

Ms Luscombe, a friend of Ms Hirsi Ali, said: ‘I think that is where they met for the first time. In all the years I have known Ayaan, she’s never had a boyfriend. She’s gorgeous, but with a fatwa, it’s tricky to find guys.’

Cry me a river. But there's always another woman's husband or so it seems.

Hirsi Ali, who wants to ban conservative and Christian political parties, which includes immigration restriction parties, in Europe and equates the Catholic faith with Islam, Nazism and Communism, is an outspoken feminist, and yet she's dropping her knickers for a British Conservative and he's quite happy with the idea while the depraved, rotten to the core media stands by and applauds because it's so romantic. Isn't it amazing the way love (for lack of a better word) crosses racial, religious, and political boundaries. But only when it wants to.

Interestingly, in the inroduction of Ferguson's Virtual History (the counter-factualism on which it is based is highly controversial among historians), he explicitly equates Fascism, Communism, and Feminism. But what does it matter for a notorious philanderer if it comes with a new piece of pussy.

Many historians dismiss counterfactual history as sometimes entertaining, but not meeting the standards of serious historical research due to its speculative nature and dismiss it as "a useless exercise". Rather like Ms. Hirsi Ali's criticism of Islam or her "conservative think tank" work, or so it seems.

Woman Washing A Car

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:34:00 +0000

Because I'm too busy for anything else right now!

When Feminists are Lying

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:47:00 +0000

Excuse the bad pun, but I couldn't resist!

Professor Chesler talks once again about ~~her genitals~~ the Islamic threat to the West:

Earlier today, I was lying on my gynecologist’s table in a highly exposed position when . . .

And that’s where I stopped reading.

I mean, surely, that’s only what one can expect from a feminist with her “gynaecocentric” world view, but she ought to stop pretending to be writing about politics.

I am sick now.