Israel’s National Infrastructure, Energy and Water Resources Minister Yuval Steinitz (Likud), lambasted the European Union on Wednesday, rejecting demands by the 28-member union that Israel investigate police behavior during a recent rally in Haifa.
More on Arutz Sheva
Israel grows tired of the EU’s bias in favor of Jew killers.
Quiz: What figure below represents the image of a real man?
Thea Dorn is a splatter novel author that passes for an intellectual in Germany. Her detective crime stories are popular among bored women and center around corpses and body parts. Fifty Shades of Grey without sex.
All, absolutely all, talking heads in Germany broke into the public scene because they furthered the left-wing cause. If you do art, you better mix in some politics. The state will eventually pay for you.
Thea Dorn entered the scene as a feminist. To obfuscate the bluntness of her narcissist break into the public she spoke rather of the “F class”. Her political credentials solidified in a book of the same name (German: Die F-Klasse). It is a compilation of interviews with snobbish upper-class women. Voila. Feminism. You go gurrrl!
But because all the rest of femi-world was already leftist she declared that she was rather libertarian (a lie). A bit lip service to the market here while working for state TV there. A bit arrogance for the weak here and a bit praise for the pseudo-libertarian party FDP there. She is nothing but her image.
Because nothing means something, she also drifted into “conservatism”. She is not the next Thatcher, or Netanyahu or Ayn Rand. No, “conservative” means waffling in a way to evoke images of a little red riding hood forest or Valhalla. Imagine a wicket witch growl: “The volcano of literature bursts with the thunder of Thor. The oak groweth thick and mighty for the strrrrongest mist of the powers….”! Whatever.
So she wrote a book about what it means to be German. I don’t bother to read it. It was something along the witch growling: Romantic era poets, tales, forests, Germanic tribes, Holocaust memorial. If I had been the publisher I would have printed it white on black and in runes. Legend has it that she writes all her books on a graveyard. Okay, I’m kidding.
She was also the first talking head to link Eva Herman, a once very popular TV presenter, to the Nazis. Eva Braun [note below] *giggle giggle*. The famous news anchor and talk-show host soon lost her job and fortune after the attack which was quickly picked up by the media outrage machine. The reason: Herman wrote a book to criticise feminism.
Now, the Valkyria Thea Dorn is back and “conservative” again. She tries to tell the rest of us what patriotism is. She says that conservative politician Alexander Gauland were an example of somebody who is not patriotic but “radical”. She then does what all “moderate” leftists do and claims that they also feel uneasy about the political correctness. “Yeah, something with colleges in the US. Bad.” And of course, she mourns that not more pointless poems are read in school.
I get really tired of “conservatives” who are obviously not conservative, never had been and never will be. I am against purity spirals, but people must at least believe their own shit. Angela Merkel suggested playing flute to save the culture. Bavarian prime minister Marcus Soeder had crucifixes hung on the walls of government buildings. This is not conservatism. This is telling conservatives that you think that we are stupid.
[note] The surname of Hitler’s mistress is the German word for the color brown. Germans associate the color with the SA brown shirts and therefore with the Nazis.
To my surprise ZEIT published an interview with a warrior. Okay, it is truncated for the “political hygiene”, but they had a conversation with him and report on his statements. The 23 year-old man left his life as a sociology student to join the Kurdish YPG. This is the point of interest for the ZEIT. The YPG belongs to the terror organisation PKK and runs a socialist community in Northern Iraq. They are currently at war with Turkey.
However, Jan-Lukas was not involved in skirmishes with the Turks. He joined to kill ISIS fighters.
Jan-Lukas grew up as a Catholic in a religious home. As a teenager he joined the Junge Union which is the youth wing of Merkel’s party CDU. At university he left the Junge Union to join another left-wing group. The Independent Leftist List” (German: Unabhängigen Linken Liste) are probably independent thinkers. ZEIT calls them “radical”. I don’t want to waste my time on their policies, but I guess that the group is fairly innocuous.
Jan-Lukas tells the paper that debate in Germany should become more lively and radical, go more into depth. It seems that he truly believes in democracy. In summer 2017 he moved to Turkey for a tenure of one semester. He says that Turkey had transformed into a dictatorship during this time, shortly after the failed coup d’etat. During a protest march he and his girlfriend were shot and wounded by Turkish police officers.
In Syria he was given the choice to either defend the community against the unexpected Turkish attack or to march against ISIS. Of course, he decided to fight ISIS. I don’t want to whitewash it all. He is very young and believes in a lot of left-wing hogwash. I think that he is also too naive about the Kurds. But he deserves our respect for doing the best in his power to join the most moral player to give him a chance to do so.
Needless to say that every single comment on ZEIT online is against him.
*Sîdar is not his last name, which is kept secret by ZEIT despite the portrait photos. It is his warrior name and means “the shadow of a tree”.
After two rape attempts in Östersund this weekend, the police urged women not to go out late. They also issued a warning that “much like this” will happen this summer, Fria Tider reports. Two similar rape attempts took place this weekend, one on Saturday and one on Sunday. Police explained the same offender could be […]
via Voice of Europe
I wrote in my recent piece about cultural decline because of our arrogance that there is a lot to say about the enormous cultural shift that happened at the end of the Roman Republic.
The reason why we are poorly informed about this piece of history is our arrogance. The disrespect we have for our ancestors. A second reason is that people with a penchant for authoritarianism value Imperial Rome over the Roman Republic. They look at a map with large coherent areas and are in awe. A huge pointless debate exists about the fall of the Roman Empire and I keep wondering what in the world was there left to fall. They mean that the territories were eventually split with all the successors to the throne fighting perpetual wars against each other. For the citizens, the ruler made little difference. They were all bonkers and oppressive.
When I speak of the decline, I mean the death of the Roman Republic. Rome and Athens ousted their kings almost exactly in the same year and developed institutions based on the participation of the wider citizenry immediately. The Greek democracy is better documented because of the literacy of the early Greeks. However, the more effective institutions and principles, those who guaranteed actual freedom and made up the example upon which our modern system of government is based, all came out of Rome.
One big misconception about the Republic is that the aristocracy is said to have controlled everything. This is a reading which reflects our general, leftist, superficial understanding of reality. Indeed, high positions were reserved for the aristocracy. However, every person had an easy time to become an aristocrat. All you had to do was ask a member of your party to “adopt” you and you could run for office. A famous example of this is Marcus Tullius Cicero. The office of the tribunes, the men who crafted laws and had them voted on in the public forum, was reserved to non-aristocrats. No problem. Claudius Pulcher, for example, had himself adopted by an ordinary citizen and got the job.
The laws don’t tell the whole story about how much freedom a group of people actually has. And this is important when we speak about women’s rights, too. A German woman in the 1970s had to ask her husband if she may open a bank account. In reality this absurd law did not stop any woman from opening an account or stop her to ask a friend or relative to open one for her. At the same time she had little to worry about when she walked home alone late at night. Fast forward to post-2015: Now, she does not have to ask a man to open an account, but once a car is not available to her she might be more likely to ask a strong man to walk her home. In an ideal world, women shouldn’t be embarrassed to ask any man to either open a bank account or to walk her home. This line of thought just illustrates that we have to step back once in a while and ask ourselves if women in our country are still becoming freer.
The ancient lady in the Republic had a right to own property and conduct her own business. She inherited an equal share of her parents’ wealth and a woman of privilege wielded enormous influence. Every woman could divorce herself any time and lead a life on her own. Formally, she was not allowed to act as a legal agent. But this did not mean much. Formal contracts were hardly ever needed and she could just pick any man to stand in for her. In fact, today we also cede legal representation to our lawyers. The difference is that in ancient Rome it was common for a man to speak for himself before a court while today we all have the position of an ancient lady. This did not work perfectly because she could not swear. In ancient Rome, men did not swear on the bible but by their scrotum. The words testicles and testimony derive from the same origin (testis).
Society was patriarchal and it had to be. There was not yet a police and the men of a family were expected to enforce the law of the state. This is also how the sharia works. We should remember this when we hear the left attack the police again. I digress. A woman was not trapped with a family or a male representation. She was free and freedom means, free to choose.
This changed dramatically with the Empire. Augustus made laws that forced widows to remarry within two years. He also punished women harshly for adultery. The Empire made Rome much more sharia-like.
At the same time, old sexual morals were discarded. The morals of the Republic survived half a millenium and were usually seen as best represented in the writings of Cato the Elder. Men were disciplined, hard, chivalrous, and respectful to women. Sexually explicit language in front of children was forbidden. Prostitution was allowed, but disdained because of the ideal of manly self-restraint (later in a futile attempt to reestablish old values the ideal was picked up again by the stoa).
In the late Republic, a league of effeminate men with loose morals entered the scene. One of them, Julius Cesar, would eventually ring the death knell of the Republic. One emperor after the other was more sexually incontinent than the next. They engaged in forbidden cross-dressing and liked murdering people for fun.
When Pompeii was excavated, murals of bawdy pornography were found everywhere across the city. This must not be confused with the effigies of erected penises that dominated the Roman Republic from early on. The phallus was a ubiquitous symbol of strength and protection and expressed honor for the masculine. Unlike the Greek, men of the Republic had their private parts always covered in public. Pompeii, however, was full of lewd remarks and pictures that showed actual copulation. The respect for the female and the sexual act had vanished.
I have heard (without being given a specific example) that the formal rights of women improved during the Empire. I wonder what freedom women gained. I only see what they had lost. What amazes me about the Republic is that the overall manliness allowed so much respect that the formal order usually gave way to freedom. An ordinary man could become senator and a woman could wield as much power as a man. The ideal, like in my example of German women above, should be that there is formal equality and a masculine ambition to support women without becoming submissive along the way.
I think, the difficult part is that it only really works if we imagined a woman were not equal and do our best to help her make her way. In reality, we may offer – unasked – to walk her home. We should be prepared to fight with any man who harasses her as we know that today attackers (if they are foreign) go unpunished when we miss to punch them right on site. We cannot let women become easy prey. At the same time we must work to improve the courts that this would eventually become unnecessary. We must also advocate for women to carry firearms.
Women should maybe try to pay more respect to men (who deserve it). As a former feminist, I think the main problem with the movement is its ingratitude. When women realize that strong men are on their side and deserve respect, men can realize that women are weak.
I cringe writing this because of all the propaganda. We all learn that women are weak because of the disadvantages that come with child-birth, career options, and the lack of physical strength. Yet, feminists who often exaggerate that picture also attack you if you dare say it. Anyway, realizing and accepting the reality that there is a power imbalance may not lead to complete equality, but it might lead to chivalry, manliness, female liberation and respect.
If you had told an Afghan woman in the 1960s that her granddaughters would wear a veil she would have laughed you out of the door. Women in Kabul wore skimpy dresses, make up and high heels. The occasional headscarf or even Burka could be seen, but was very uncommon. Out in the countryside women wouldn’t have dreamed to ever wear something as clumsy as a veil. They were working in the fields and had no patience for fancy prudery virtue signalling.
The picture was very similar in Tehran, in Cairo, Algeria, in Pakistan and in many other places. Women of the sixties were so sure of themselves, they had not to worry.
I think we see the same again in the West right now. The only argument why things could not become worse is that “nah, not us”. In other words, the argument is no argument. It’s arrogance.
Things slowly dawn on the left, but they are too self-righteous to admit it. The new antisemitism commissioner Felix Klein demanded that the crime statistics be “reconstructed”. He says what we all know. They must stop lying. Specifically, he spoke about the lie that 95% of all antisemitic crimes were associated with the political right.
But the pace is slow and whether his words will have any effect is yet to be seen.
The real problem is the lack of education, particularly history classes. The multiculturalism and “we are immune to downfall” mantra can only be pushed because people lack actual information. They don’t realize how deep a culture can fall.
What we have seen in the Islamic world so far might not even be the worst outcome. We also might see that the moral relativism could result in a complete breakdown of virtues. The left does not fear that because it claims that all cultures are equal.
Even a very superficial look at history should give you a break. The Mongols under Genghis Khan slaughtered about 40 million people, estimated to have been a tenth of the world population at the time. That is even more people than Adolf Hitler killed.
The fall of the Roman Republic resulted in a rapid and utter destruction of gender roles and a blood lust that spawned the golden age of gladiator games. That shift is so strong that I could write an entire article about it. By the time of Cicero, a strong and well-rounded sense of masculinity was still prevalent and the chivalry that came with it resulted in an unparallelled influence of women in premodern times. By the time of Nero, a mere century later, killing was a popular game, the Emperor castrated and married another men and Pompeii was inundated in pornography (Sodom was probably prude in comparison). Infanticide (postnatal abortion) became common.
The Japanese were in constant war for ages. Their samurai soldiers were out to collect heads. The more heads you collected the more money and prestige you earned. Some cheated and chopped off the heads of women. The heads were examined to find out the shenanigans. This is what happens when chopping off heads is rewarded in a culture.
The Maori of New Zealand are a bit touchy when one speaks of their warrior past. They have changed dramatically since and hide what was. Was it all about a quaint warrior dance and fancy tattoos? It was also about collecting heads. There was also a game that resembled tin knock down – only with stacked up heads.
Some Indians famously burnt widows to death. Many cultures practiced cannibalism. Idi Amin, President of Uganda from 1971 to 1979, was very proud of his habit of eating humans and drinking their blood.
The Inca were so much into killing that they basically fought wars for fun. The game was that you proved your warrior skills by catching your opponents alive. Only a captive could make your wife and children enjoy the presence of his death as a public human sacrifice. The captive was slit open alive and his pounding heart was ripped out by the priest, displayed to the public and flung into a fire. The thrill was appreciated so much that it let to regular unjustified attacks on surrounding tribes. We are supposed to feel sorry that they are boring Catholics now.
Whenever we hear about colonialism we are on the defence. Most of us roll over. A few know that Europeans were also colonialised by Muslims and in a very brutal fashion. Muslims have a longer and more devastating history of colonialism committed against Europeans than the other way around. But also the motivation of the European colonialists are derided and dismissed. Did Christian missionaries not serve a good role? Just think of the examples of savage cultures above.
The left defines colonialism only by its lowest points, the most brutal battles, the most unjust rulers, the unfairest treatment of subordinates. Are we also supposed to be ashamed about streets, hospitals, and schools? With the attack on colonialism the left says that savagery does not exist. If savagery does not exist, you have nothing to lose. If you feel so safe to think that you have nothing to lose, you also cannot comprehend that your granddaughter will wear a Burka. And maybe it doesn’t matter because all cultures are equal. She may also be a cannibal by then.
Nobody says that our culture is better than others. This is now considered racism. Where the Christian missionaries racists? Why would they care about the souls of the savages if they were racists? We are constantly on the defence and not even that. Douglas Murray said quite rightly that we are first and foremost intellectually lazy. It is very easy to roll over and take on the chin every accusation against our groups because we don’t have to research why they are wrong.
How do people explain the world and history if they know absolutely nothing about it? The answer is historical materialism. I notice that we are so doused with Marxism that you will not even find many on the conservative side who have the balls to rip it apart. Historical materialism simplifies the world for dummies. You don’t know what happened but you know that some struggle for money and power is enough to explain it. Whatever does not fit, the rituals, from widow-burning to human sacrifice, is at best something that was implemented or “abused” by those who seek material wealth. At worst the fact is ignored. That’s all. Neither human nature nor cultural aspects are allowed to explain history so we could actually learn from it.
Its charm is the intellectual laziness. It actually erases all history and saves you from looking it up. The left is aggressively telling us that we should look forward anyway. Nothing to be seen here. They mirror the attitude of Qin Shi Huang, the first Emperor of China, famous for his terracotta army. He was not only burning all writings and mass murdering at least one million people, he also demanded that people forget about the past. This is the theme all totalitarians have in common.
The left claims that it does want to remember the Holocaust. I fear that they have lost their entire religiously bequeathed moral systems and historic roots so thoroughly that the superficial memory of the Nazi era is the only reference their moral compass has. All the world must be looked at through the prism of how much it resembles the Third Reich. But with only one data point, one cannot learn from history. If you want to prevent something like the Shoah to happen ever again, you must talk about Genghis Khan, Stalin, Mao and so on and honestly find the similarities and differences.
People don’t do this because of the shame that came with the Holocaust. But our memory of the dead does not serve the purpose of instilling shame. We honor the victims because they deserve it. It is a question of basic humanity. We also want that the Holocaust like other mass murders teach us to stop this from ever happening again. As a human being I’m also ashamed of the Holocaust. I’m also ashamed of the slave trade. But I’m equally ashamed of crimes that were committed by non-Europeans.
Shame is a dangerous emotion. Two German words have gone almost extinct because they were over-used by Adolf Hitler: Schande (like shanda) and Schmach. Both mean shame. The emotion was one of the main drivers that called Hitler to revenge the loss of the WWI. Do we really want to douse people with emotions of guilt and shame without putting things into perspective? I am the last to relativize the Holocaust. I know how many morons want to play it down. I call for redemption. We humans have enough reason to be ashamed. Learning from it is how we can redeem ourselves. But learning and redemption is a continuous process. Those Germans who say “we learnt from the past” usually want to close the case. If you continue to learn from the past, you will continue to find redemption.