Monday, October 07, 2013

The Ghettoization of Europe: “We Are the Last 3 German Children in Our School.”

There are now only three German children left in the Jens-Nydahl-Grundschule in Kreuzberg, Berlin—a shocking demonstration of how Europe is being ethnically cleansed by Third World immigration.
A story in the Bild magazine on the development was headlined: “We are the last 3 German children in our German school. The rest are Muslims.”

Kreuzberg in Berlin has long been a destination for Turkish immigration into the German capital, and now the inevitable point has been reached where Germans have been ethnically cleansed from that part of the city.

In the playground Talina (11), Svenja (11) and Jason (9) can’t understand a word. Because, here, their classmates only speak Turkish and Arabic, the Bild article continued.

Here 99 percent of the 313 pupils have an immigrant (Muslim) background. For 285 of those, the parents receive financial support from the state.

Talina is in the 6th year. “When she first went to school, she could read and write her first words. Her fellow pupils couldn’t say ‘Thank you’, ‘Please’ or ‘Good morning’,” says her mother Mara M. (45).

The German children are teased about being ‘pork eaters’. Her classmate Svenja: “I wish there were more pupils who could speak my language.” Jason’s mother says: “It’s not good that there are so few German children at the school.”

A teacher was quoted by Bild as saying: “We have tried in vain to get Germans in the school. Now we’re concentrating on the clientele that we have. In the canteen, there is no more pork.”
Kreuzberg is now the largest Turkish city outside of Turkey and is known as “Kleine Istanbul” (Little Istanbul).

According to Berlin government statistics, 90 percent of the inhabitants of certain areas of Kreuzberg live below the poverty level and subsist on taxpayer handouts—making a mockery of the liberal claim that immigration into Europe is needed to “keep the pension system and economy running.”


International 'Islamophobia' Conference Promotes Sharia Agenda

Objective observers should be rightfully concerned by the "International Conference on Islamophobia: Law & Media" held by the Turkish government's Directorate General of Press and Information (DGPI or BYGEM in Turkish) and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) this past September 12-13 in Istanbul's Grand Tarabya Hotel. Conference participants substantiated all too many threats emanating from various Muslims and their allies, calling into question their respect for free speech and freedom of expression.

The conference website defined "Islamophobia" according to the Greek suffix phobia as a "groundless fear and intolerance of Islam and Muslims." By "culminating in hate speech and attitudes towards Muslims," this phobia is "detrimental to international peace." There should be "recognition of Islamophobia as a hate crime and Islamophobic attitudes as human rights violations."

In Istanbul, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan reiterated his well-known meme (see here and here) that "Islamophobia" as a "kind of racism" is a "crime against humanity." "No monotheistic religion," Erdoğan elaborated, "adopts, supports, permits or leads terror."

"If Christianity and Judaism cannot be mentioned with terrorism," Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arinç seconded in his remarks, "then our noble religion Islam cannot be defamed this way either." Arinç discerned the main cause of "Islamophobia" in the belief that "Islam and democracy are not compatible," yet "Muslims are democrats in essence."

Representing the OIC's 57 Muslim-majority states (including "Palestine"), a fellow Turk, OIC Secretary General Dr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, reprised themes from the OIC'slongstanding attempts to restrict criticism of Islam. Ihsanoglu decried the "exploitation....of freedom of speech."

The conference's first session featured internationally renowned Islam scholar and regular Islamist apologist John Esposito. Esposito cited "irrational fear" being behind "anti-Sharia legislations" in the United States. Turning toward Egypt, Esposito criticized those who "think it is legitimate to overthrow a democratically elected government."

Joining Esposito on the panel to compare anti-Semitism with "Islamophobia" was Norman Gary Finkelstein. The Jewish child of Holocaust survivors, Finkelstein has a long record of comparing Israel to Nazism and supporting groups such as Hezbollah while having his views of fellow Jews celebrated among anti-Semites.

Nathan Lean appeared at the conference as well. Pulitzer Prize-winning critic Jeffrey Taylor has criticized Lean's recent "maladroit, bungling critique" of atheist Richard Dawkins as an "Islamophobe." Bête noir among Lean's ilk, Islam scholar Robert Spencerhas likewise condemned various sloppy errors in Lean's public correspondence. Spencer has also condemned Lean as a "stalker" for threatening to release publicly supposed pictures of Spencer's home and family.

Joining Lean on a panel were American and Iranian professors Stephen Sheehi and Saied Reza Ameli. During a 2011 visit to the University of Florida, Sheehi had defined "Islamophobia" as merely being a "hatred of brown people." Ameli, meanwhile, was afounder and leading member of the United Kingdom's Islamic Human Rights Commission(IHRC), a "radical Islamist organization" in the assessment of Israel's Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Racism.

The self-proclaimed Turkish "Marxist academic" Ali Murat Yel and his American colleagueHatem Al Bazian were also in Istanbul. Yel has praised Erdoğan's ruling AKP party for having "paved the way for…a democratic society" in Turkey despite Islamist concerns. "The West," Yel has also opined, "may come to appreciate the Muslim experience of both Andalusia and the Ottoman past in dealing with their religious minorities." The "outspoken anti-Zionist" Bazian, meanwhile, has in the past stated notoriously genocidal Islamic hadith against the Jews.

Turkish academic Bülent Şenay oversaw the conference declaration drafting. In a 2010 presentation to the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Senay deemed "Islamophobia" as "today…the strongest form of hate crime," extending to the "psychological terror" of "cultural terrorists." Şenay condemned "hate speech…targeting all the tenets and adherents of Islam…under the banner of the freedom of expression." Additionally, "hate crimes originate from hate speeches," Şenay argued in another 2010 OSCE presentation. Şenay is the founder of the European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion (EMISCO), an entity prominent in the past for seeking OSCE opposition to "Islamophobia" speech (see here, here, and here).

Dahlia Mogahed rounded out the conference participants. This Esposito protégé and Obama Administration appointee has had numerous associations with MB-linked groups in the United States. She has also downplayed the extent of violent extremism among Islamists globally as well as the dangers of sharia.

Distinguishing between "legitimate criticisms…and hate-filled or irrational criticisms" was for BYEGM Director General Murat Karakaya in the conference final statement a "fundamental question." Yet the conference did not inspire the confidence that freedom of expression was a consideration in the discussion, particularly in light of host country Turkey's own harsh treatment of irreverence towards freedom of expression (see here andhere). The Istanbul agenda is yet another example of Islamists seeking to internally codify blasphemy under Sharia.


Making a Right turn

So, let’s say you realized, that, try as you might, you’re not like the rest of them.

You’re different. You don’t instantly agree with them. Their assumptions are no longer yours. Maybe, secretly, they never were. But now, you find yourself the odd man out as they rant, they rave, they ridicule.

You realize–in a quiet, private moment–that you aren’t a liberal. What next? What do you do? Can you let go from the safety net of agreeable party conversation and follow your own path? It’s quite a leap. Anyone who has done it will tell you–it’s never easy. See: David Mamet.

And I know–I know–you’ve never considered, ever, that you might be a conservative. Because, for the longest time, being a conservative was met with edgy derision and mockery. The “typical conservative,” as identified by the media and those in entertainment, is a cloddish clown–a humorless scold devoid of contemporary caché and hip fashion. Some of them make you angry. Some make you laugh at their earnestness. Some… you just don’t get. They’re weird.

I get it. I was there, once, facing a new terrain of oddballs. It’s important to note, however, that this stereotype–although true in some parts–in the larger sense is false. And it is a stereotype created by a movement and its proponents in the media that has owned the narrative since I was in diapers (at least ten years). The idea that conservatives are somehow more intolerant and angry than liberals is a lie. Both have their fair share, but the nature of conservatives is “live and let live.” It’s a shame that a few of them still don’t get that part. But all in all, the oddballs are oddly cool.

How do you make that transition from left to right? How do you accept that you are now the hated? The reviled? The dork? The hater of women, minorities, and women minorities? Should you even bother, if bothering means you’ll be smeared as a racist? Is it better just to walk out of one group and avoid the other? Disown any identification and remove yourself from such ideological battles? That would be easy, if you did not live in a liberal world. But if you do live there, then what do you do? How do you come out of the closet, as a rightie, without ruining your life?

By asking that question, you answer it. The animus directed at one who leaves the fold explains the value of the journey out. Its struggle dictates the meaning. The slings and arrows one experiences means, quite simply, that you are onto something. For the anger toward your move is a sweaty reaction to courage that others (like the attackers) lack.

If you were to define real rebellion–the act of a true recalcitrant–it would be through the condemnation of your leap. Consider that by becoming a liberal–moving from right to left–you will be the recipient of the age old “strange new respect.” You will be lauded. You will gain opportunities afforded to the cool who made that leap already. You will keep friends, and make more. You will experience opportunities that are available only to those who speak what pretends to be daring, when it is solely predictable. That observation tells you that there is nothing rebellious about it. Ariana reaped a new life from it. So did David Brock. And every celebrity on the wane. It’s the lifeline for dead ends.

Consider the opposite, my dear troubled liberal. Moving right cannot be done at night. The first time you reveal a traditionally conservative thought (you are pro-life, you believe in American exceptionalism, you decry dependence and government interference, you balk at racial politics, you embrace free markets while eschewing punitive taxes and regulations*), it cannot be hidden. The spotlight finds you, and, like a magnifying glass on a spider, it seeks to fry.

For that alone, your change is worth it. There is nothing more rebellious, truly, than turning right. There is nothing more daring than standing alone, facing the onslaught of a smirking media, and saying, “Here I am, I am not you.” There is nothing edgier than saying to the edgy, “You lie. You are as edgy as a frisbee.”

The colonial rebels were resisting the same thing. They didn’t want to be overtaxed, controlled from afar, or have all aspects of their lives regulated. They were TRUE rebels, not fake Sean Penn champagne rebels. That’s what the country was founded on, and that’s what we’re in danger of losing. (It’s STILL what defines us. Unlike every European country, we find “security,” i.e. a safety net available at our beck and call, beneath us. That may be the most significant manifestation of the American mindset. THAT is American exceptionalism. “Rugged individualism” is NOT dead. We’re NOT that far from the frontier, nor do we wish to be. We’ll leave a stultifying, deadening desire for “security” at all costs to the ossified empires of the past. We want freedom, and the risk is the exhilaration.

The only way I truly changed was interpreting the rejection of my “change” as validation. It was liberating. It was freedom. And it’s the only way to convey the value of such transformation to the young and confused. It is time to accept that a peculiar creaking creepiness exists in certain places on the right, for it will only open doors to new recruits, relieved that you understand their reticence.

And when they come, accept their own weirdness with open arms


The BBC has come to loathe those it serves

A great organisation has grown too Leftie and too big

It has been an interesting week. Syria, the Tory conference, Islamic terrorism in Kenya, Yemen and Nigeria, budget-lock in Washington: the world overflowed with news – but not on the BBC. That once-great news organisation seemed determined to turn every bulletin into a seminar on the life and opinions of Ralph Miliband.

As Lefties would say, there was a sub-text here. The BBC went well beyond objectivity. It was using the Miliband affair to attack its enemies. In so doing, it was also exposing its own cast of mind.

When John Birt became director-general of the BBC, he realised that there was a problem with many of his journalists. In recent years, there had been an infestation of soggy Leftism (my paraphrase, not his words). These characters often lived in an intellectual bubble, socialising solely with their colleagues and with others who held the same opinions. They never met anyone who argued that there might be a case for the death penalty, or that Maggie was not a monster any more than Reagan was a slow-witted war-mongering cowboy.

As they all held the same views, they also persuaded themselves that theirs were the only permissible ones and that anyone who disagreed was morally inferior. Some Marxists used to talk approvingly of “fused groups”: cells of like-minded comrades who would reinforce each others’ revolutionary rigour. The BBC was in danger of becoming a fused group.

John Birt also thought that his employees were underpaid. There, he was able to take corrective action. But the fused-group mentality persisted, especially over Europe and the environment. The BBC is not incapable of neutrality. It would like to have displayed more of it during the Falklands War. But on the EU and climate change, it preferred to act as a political commissar, suppressing all criticism.

That brings us to press regulation, and the next negotiations over the BBC licence fee. As the Marxists would say, it is no accident that the BBC should have tried to embarrass the Daily Mail just before the regulatory proposals are discussed. Plenty of people in the BBC would like to regulate the press, in the hope that thus tamed, newspapers would be less willing – and less free – to complain about the BBC and the licence fee. Papers have to earn their living in the free market. The BBC earns its living, courtesy of the criminal law. No wonder it seems keen to deploy that law against the free press.

There is a further factor. Marxists in their fused groups, wondering why the populace is not rallying behind the socialist revolution, have come up with the answer: “false consciousness”. If people appear to reject socialism, they are clearly suffering from false consciousness, so their views can be disregarded (cf the BBC with Eurosceptics and climate-change doubters). But one of the major proponents of false consciousness is the capitalist press.

It is impossible to overestimate the extent to which the Left hates the so-called Right-wing press, especially the popular Murdoch papers. Disregard the manufactured indignation about the hacking of Bimbo Bimbette’s phone calls. Lefties believe that but for the Sun, Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock would have won elections.

They also loathe the Daily Mail. Forget raucous football chants. For the Left, the two greatest obscenities are “lower-middle class” and “suburbia”. Hence their detestation of the Mail, which is the laureate of both. When they think of Mail readers, those on the Left imagine that they are all like Harry Potter’s adoptive parents, the neo-fascists of Privet Drive. When the Left sneers at the Mail, it is sneering at millions of decent people who get up in the morning, go to work and generally help to keep the country going – while also paying a large number of licence fees.

On the subject of suburban decencies, as the Cameroons would say, the BBC just doesn’t get it – as was proved by its despicable coverage of last year’s Royal River Pageant. There was a basic problem. It did not seem to occur to those in charge that tens of millions of their fellow countrymen revere the Queen and would expect the BBC to cover such a royal event in the way that would have come naturally to Richard Dimbleby.

In his era, one Home Service announcer, closing down the programme for the night, said “home, service: two of the most beautiful words in the English language. Goodnight.” It is impossible to imagine anyone in the BBC talking like that today. The BBC does not love its country.

So why should it benefit from a licence fee? That could be justified, if the BBC were like Covent Garden or the National Gallery: supplying a cultural service which the market cannot provide. When it comes to culture, however, the modern BBC is in the Hermann Goering camp. As regards current affairs on television, the BBC is living on its past reputation. Today’s output is feeble. The main concern seems to be low-grade popular entertainment, which is not especially popular.

The other month, I was deep in the country, on my own, trying to do some intensive writing. At the end of a day’s work, I was in the market for light entertainment: something like Dad’s Army, Steptoe and Son, Dr Finlay or Upstairs, Downstairs. I searched the BBC schedules in vain, and made do with DVDs of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and Smiley’s People (both much better than the books). The BBC used to be a great organisation, at many levels. But it has grown too Leftie and too big, even though it often gives the impression that it only consists of two sections: the directorate of paedophilia and the bureau of pay-offs.

So what about a £50 licence fee, to pay for the Home Service, the World Service, the Third Programme and one television channel, along the lines of BBC2’s original remit? In the interim, before the BBC next attacks the free press, it should look up the passage about motes and beams – assuming that there is a Bible somewhere in Broadcasting House.

As for Ralph Miliband, his reputation can look after itself. Although sons are entitled to express their filial piety, Ed Miliband should be careful. He almost gives the impression that he has been crying himself to sleep every night over the insults to his father. This invites cynicism about his motives, and scrutiny of his father’s beliefs.

We are assured that far from hating this country, Prof Miliband loved it. He had a funny way of showing it. He wanted to abolish all our institutions plus our current economic system, replacing them by Marxian socialism, which has been so successful wherever it was practised. That is an odd way of displaying love. If Ralph Miliband loved this country, Oscar Wilde was right: “Each man kills the thing he loves.”



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



No comments: