Pamela Geller ("Fearless, intelligent, beautiful -- Pamela Geller wears her Supergirl costume well ... is a dynamo of energy and a paragon of courage and fearlessness." Spencer about Geller) and Robert Spencer ("Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt." Geller about Spencer) (Yes, we cackled too!) have cancelled their trip to Cologne.
Politically Incorrect says that the withdrawal was due to Charles Johnson’s of LGF infame attacks on Pro-Köln, as a "fascist" organization. Wow!
What could have cyber-Charlemagne done to them? Send them a cyber curse for cyber-fascists? Cyber-clobber them with a cyber-fascism-cudgel? Cyber-drown their cyber-rubber duckie? Seriously, there is only one sensemaking reason for them to continue to defend their wannabe-hosts when they have cancelled their attendance, namely that they've gotten cold feet in the face of the many information on Pro-Köln they have gotten from serious Islamcritics in Germany (some of which I have seen) who know a thing or two more about their own country than our Innocents Abroad. And being the unprincipled attention seekers they are, they are now blaming CJ for it, so as not to close any doors to potential future appearances. (Yes, I know, the latter is an assumption.)
DISCLAIMER START
At this point, a disclaimer is called for: We do NOT deny Pro-Köln the right to host such an anti-Islam event. The way the city of Cologne is handling this shows that they have not yet arrived at democracy and probably never will. They do everything to marginalise, even foreclose, Pro-Köln's, a legal party's, activities, for example by banning a march to the building site of the gigantic DITIB-mosque, while they are tolerating next to the magnificent Cologne cathedral a permanent vile Israel-baiting exhibition. Such a march can not be "protected", or so Cologne police chief Klaus Steffenhagen says, which is unquestioningly repeated by the media. Gudrun Eussner says: Many events licensed by the authorities, which do not need to be protected, take care that the anti-Islamisation congress can not be protected." And:Is it radical Left anarchists now who are deciding now who is allowed to rally here and who isn't? Are they allowed to break the monopoly of the state on the use of force and does the police take it for granted?
The answer is: yes.
DISCLAIMER END
However, legal as Pro-Köln may be, a few questions regarding their legitimacy may be in order.
First and above all, their criticism of Islam is opportunist. Markus Beisicht, co-founder and chairman of Pro-Köln and Pro-NRW confirms in an Interview with the Junge Freiheit that "Islamkritik" is for Pro-Köln and Pro-NRW not more than part of a right-wing party project. Islamisation has become such a crucial topic for so many people and basically fits into a catalogue of "rightwing" issues that they picked it up and had been amazed how well it was received. "Specifically in big cities one can score here." They have, as Beisicht puts it, claimed a "market niche" and thus reached voters who wouldn't have elected them otherwise.
In other words and as Gudrun Eussner puts it: While looking for befitting issues for a party-project, Pro-Köln has found Islamisation. Therefore it might have been a different topic as well, had it only served the purpose of attracting voters.
Many "nationalist" European parties are, also, not quite the knights in shining anti-Islamic armour as which American Islam critics are fond of seeing them. Front National and FPÖ, for example, have nothing against Islam as such as long as Muslims are safely staying in their own countries. The Pro-movement shares this point of view, therefore their catchphase is "Against Islamisation and Überfremdung(1)", two terms, often used together. It is typical that both, left- and rightwing extremists, have nothing against Islam as such because of their natural affinity to a totalitarian polit-ideology like Islam. If it comes push to shove, rightwingers will club together with Muslims, be it against the Serbs or against the Jews, thinly veiled as anti-Zionism. Case in point: March 1999, Manfred Rouhs, later to become a Pro-Köln co-founder, supports the terrorist UCK in the Kosovo, who are - for him - liberation nationalists.
What says Robert Spencer in his own words at Jihad Watch?:
Meanwhile, I am not going to the Cologne conference, contrary to Johnson's claims; still, however, he is trying to defame me with it. From here is the claim that I am "defending" Manfred Rouhs of Pro-Köln, whom Johnson claims is a Nazi, because I posted his pro-Israel statement here. (You know you're in Johnson's Bizarro world when posting a pro-Israel statement gets you accused of being a Nazi.) Rouhs, says Johnson, is a Nazi who sells Nazi literature at his website -- and therefore I must be a crypto-Nazi, right? (Buckley's sage advice to Gore Vidal comes to mind at this point.)This is so incredibly, intransigent, rock-hard, impermeably and unforgivingly dumb that it almost left me speechless. That and the fact that it saves a lot of gastric acid to be prepared for either, those innocent, -wide eyed requests for "proof" from those who then nick my information to post it as their own wisdom elsewhere (you know who you are), or those who think that Europe is just the 51st state of the US of A and are miffed when told that "right wing" has a somewhat different meaning at this side of the Atlantic, makes this entry a bit belated, but the open questions are still as topical as they were a week ago.
Anyway, about Rouhs' book selection at his website: Rouhs sells material, as you can see, by the noted neo-Nazis Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Samuel Huntington, Norman Finkelstein, and Clausewitz.
Ah, but all that is just a cover for the Nazi literature that he sells, that Charles has found, right?
Such as: Does Spencer really not know for what Chomsky, Moore and Finkelstein stand? No, they are not "Nazis". In that he is right. Two of them are even Jewish and don't we all know that Jews can't be Nazis? They don't wear a black or brown uniform and they are not goosestepping around, brandishing swastika-ed banners. Should the truth be really too subtle to be understood by Robert Spencer and his likes?
Maybe. Let's start with Noam Chomsky. Maybe it was really too much trouble to find out that he is published by the Italian Neo-Nazi-publisher Barbarossa, right between the vilest Nazi scum, such as Jacques Isorni, the lawyer of Robert Brasillach:
Il Processo Brasillach - Jacques Isorni - € 6,20More from Barbarossa:
Il Controllo dei Mass Media. Le spettacolari conquiste della propaganda - Noam Chomsky - € 7,00You got the gist?(2)
La Menzogna di Giuda. I perché di un libro scomodo - Centro Studi Orion - € 5,16
Rivolte e Guerre Contadine. Storia non romanzata degli Stati Uniti d’America - Aa. Vv. - € 13,00
La Rivoluzione Fascista. Antologia di scritti politici a cura di A. Cucchi e G. Galante; in appendice articoli di J. Evola e R. Farinacci - Berto Ricci - € 8,00
Now Norm Finkelstein: The German translation of this upright anti-fascist's oevre is, for example, sold at the Neo-Nazi online shop Weltnetzladen, between books that reveal the genocidal and perverted nature of the bible, or those of Dr. Claus Nordbruch ("Machtfaktor Zionismus") who is fond of drooling over Germans as genocidal targets of Britain and America when he isn't stridently demanding "reparations" for a wronged Germany who was dealt a marked card in WWII and next to titles like "Ami go home!" or "Zwölf gute Gründe für einen Antiamerikanismus" (i.e. twelve good reasons for, you've guessed it, antiamericanism).(3)
But without doubt, Chomsky and Finkelstein are no Nazis and we all know how much Michael Moore loves America.
Even a superficial dig like this reveals such a cesspool of totalitarianism, antiamericanism, antisemitism, history revisionism and God knows what -isms, that it seems -- and indeed is -- totally irrelevant whether one labels it Nazi, or left or right or center or whatever. It is a kraken with countless tentacles obsessively feeding on its sole fodder, the hatred for America, the Ersatz-Jew and Israel, the Über-Jew. And it reaches far into the realms of other groups and parties as well, groups and parties much more respected and important than hapless Pro-Köln.
I have written about it countless times. It is the core topic of Roncesvalles. So what else is new?
The question remains whether it is asked too much from Robert Spencer to do some research. Brief, basic research, as I just did, in the Internet, would suffice. Nobody expects a crash-course of twothousand years of European and German history and culture from him. His Wikipedia entry tells us that he holds a Master's degree in the department of Religious Studies from an American university, so we can assume (or is it hope?) that he knows how to do research, to tell apart the important from the unimportant, not to let his personal opinions get in the way of the truth, and that he is able to perform a critical appraisal of his sources. That is not even intellectual integrity, that are the very basics of academic armamentarium, science 101. But the urge to be right when Charles Johnson is wrong is so overwhelming that Spencer, dumb and dull like the moron he isn't, happily commits intellectual suicide just not to be thrown out of his fool's paradise of feeling superior to Charles Johnson.
What an achievement.
(1) "For years Austrians have been warned about foreigners, indeed, about an inundation of foreigners. In 1993 the word "Überfremdung" - being overrun with foreigners - was declared the non-word of the year in Germany. Yet in 1999 a successful election campaign could be conducted in Austria with the slogan "Stop the excessive immigration." The word "Überfremdung" is hardly translatable, because the German language does not know the differentiation found in English, Italian, or Spanish between stranger and foreigner." See here.
(2) It is all available on the web. Dr. Gudrun Eussner, a political scientist, writes about it at her invaluable website for years now.
(3) Or, for example, a "conservative" book on bringing up children by Christa Müller, the wife of one of the leaders of the post-Communist party DIE LINKE, Oskar Lafontaine. By Spencer's logic, the entire shop would be above board on the strength of such immaculate leftist credentials.
Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.
8 comments:
i suppose if churchill and fdr had been as wise as you and CJ they would have forsworn any aid from or to stalin and lost the war nobly.
if u think so then u ass.
kasparov marches with the cpommunits agianst putin.
does that make kasparov guilty of anything the commies did?
is kasparov wrong for mareching with them?
if u think so then u r an ass.
in ww4, i stand with pro-choice people who oppose islamicization (like glenn) even though abortion has murdered 30 million non,muslim babies since 1975.
WHY!?
first things fiorst.
i believe we are in an existential war agaianst islam.
i belive that we must defeat the jihadist ebemy forst.
after that victory i will fight other battles against my fellow citizens.
until that victory they are my allies.
i will only fight the leftists at home who oppose fighting back against global jihad.
i forgive the leftists who are unabashedly on our side: hitchens et al.
wake up.
Does Pro-Cologne oppose further Muslim immigration to Germanistan?
If so they've got my support.
'Nuff said.
Modern Europe is no less confusing to me now than when I tried to understand the causes of WWI back in my college history classes.
Since there does not seem to be the same cultural concept of "freedom" as we (some of us anyway) have in the US, it sure seems like a "pick your poison" situation.
Or maybe there is a group with a certain political/moral purity that can carry the banner of - um, what banner are they carrying?
The banner of anti-totalitarian Islam? But Commu-totalitarianism is OK? Or German National Socialism is OK?
If there is an imminent threat to one's civil liberties, I suppose one would want to fight that first. Or are you worried that if the existential threat is eradicated, the monster will just turn to consume the "perceived" threats next - like all Africans, Jews, etc?
But if they can't get it together, they'll be nothing left to fight for anyway.
But I am getting the feeling that if Europe cared about its civil liberties, it would not be falling into the abyss. Because, from my perspective, it is falling. No future tense about it.
Very frightening to look into one's own future, that's for sure.
Ro
"If so they've got my support.
'Nuff said."
Yes. "'nuff" to see that you are a moron.
"Since there does not seem to be the same cultural concept of "freedom" as we (some of us anyway) have in the US, it sure seems like a "pick your poison" situation."
Well said.
"If there is an imminent threat to one's civil liberties, I suppose one would want to fight that first. Or are you worried that if the existential threat is eradicated, the monster will just turn to consume the "perceived" threats next - like all Africans, Jews, etc?"
The problem is that the loss of civil liberties is the last thing that worries Pro-Köln and their ilk. As I said, they have nothing against Islam as such. The problem is, too, that "civil liberties" is a concept that is not understood, even hated here. The scenario you describe is possible, but I don't think it's likely. The problem is that Pro-Köln and their ilk will do as little about Islam here as they did and do in the Kosovo or in the Middle East. Again: It's not about Islam, they have nothing against Islam as such. It's about Überfremdung and this concept includes hatred of America.
"But I am getting the feeling that if Europe cared about its civil liberties, it would not be falling into the abyss. Because, from my perspective, it is falling. No future tense about it."
Yes, I agree. And again, we come to civil liberties and Western values. Do you think that those who think that the bible is a perverted and genocidal book and America and the Jews responsible for all of mankind's ills are those who will save us from Islam?
"Very frightening to look into one's own future, that's for sure."
Indeed.
Thank you for that thoughtful comment to my post.
I beg to differ on your assessment of FPOE. It is simply untrue that this party has nothing against Islam as long as it is outside Austrian borders. Members of FPOe are well aware of the dangers of Islam and its teachings. They do not, however, use the language necessary to combat Islam YET, but this is a matter of "what can be done on a political level" right now.
The reason I know this is that I am not only Austrian, but I also hold 3-part seminars on Islam, financed by FPOe. The facts I present are making their way into people's mind, albeit too slowly.
I do ask you and all other critics of FPOe to examine the party. Granted, they are not perfect. Which party is, after all? After a serious reality check of the facts on the ground, they are the only ones willing to address the problems.
And if you were in Austria, trying to counter the Islamic invasion, tell me, what would you do? There is a political reality, as there is in every country, and this reality can only be changed very slowly, but persistently. And it is not helpful to vilify FPOe. Criticize, yes; vilify, no.
Editrix...no googling can give you reliable information with the granularity I would now require to either believe or dismiss the kind of charges we now see.
Support for Israel could be support for what some ethnic nationalist BUYS as apartheid there.
Stormfront crosses appear and disappear, book sellers become iconic for what was in mom's breast milk.
Perception is impossible to pry apart from reality
A stop to immigration for reasons of a nation's security may be outright racism in reality.
Neither the accuser nor the defender can be sure.
And it's a distraction.
Because one is right or wrong about VB is meaningless in the next issue.
The result is a chaotic defeat on the continent or civil war, or 30 years' war (1618 variety).
What a joke.
@ editrix .. is THIS Überfremdung
Post a Comment