“Although the politicians and the Evangelical Church of Germany do everything to play down the arson and hush it up…, the Germans in Garbsen, whether Christian or not, understand the handwriting on the wall.”
Last week we posted translated German newspaper reports concerning the burning of the Willehadi-Kirche in Garbsen. Our Canadian correspondent Rembrandt Clancy has translated an essay from Politically Incorrect about the incident, with an introduction based on German newspaper reports published today (August 9).
Introductory Note from Rembrandt Clancy
The essay that follows, Crystal Night of the Multicoloured Republic? by C. Jahn, was originally posted at Politically Incorrect on 7 August 2013. The essay analyses, in the light of recent history, the first arson perpetrated on a church in Germany and the political consequences that can be expected from it.
Gates of Vienna has already reported on the event itself. The evangelical Willehadi-Church (Church of St. Willehad) was burned to the ground along with the adjacent parish hall, with damage estimated in the millions. It happened on the night of 30 July 2013 in the town of Garbsen in Lower Saxony, about 11 km northwest of Hanover. The Willehadi-Kirche is situated in the most populated district of Garbsen known as Auf der Horst.
The following excerpts from the Hannoversche Allgemeine, reportedly a Left-leaning newspaper, provide Gates of Vienna readers with a background similar to that which German readers have before reading C. Jahn’s essay. It is generally agreed that the alleged perpetrators, who have not yet been apprehended, hail from a culturally enriched section of the Garbsen. The reaction of the Lutheran spokesman to the event is also an interesting case study in itself, and gives substance to C. Jahn’s statement that not only state support has been withdrawn from the German people, but also ecclesiastical support.
According to the Hannoversche Allgemeine (9 Aug. 2013):
“It is not the first time that arsonists in the Auf der Horst part of the city have been playing with fire. In this year alone the police recorded 31 intentionally set fires. As a rule it is paper recycling bins which go up in flames. A week ago there was also an attempt to set fire to the same parish hall which is now burned to the ground. In most cases the police have no clue as to the perpetrators. But the residents of the quarter express their suspicion bluntly: ‘We have been terrorised by youths for years. They swear at us, deal drugs openly, and no one does anything,’ says Klaus-Dieter Gorges. Most of the young men have partly consolidated themselves into youth-gangs and name themselves AIG (Foreigners in Garbsen) or Gtown Gangsta, whereby the ‘G’ stands for Garbsen.”
In another article of the same date the Hannoversche Allgemeine reports that among the gangs in the quarter, one is Turkish and the other Kurdish:
The AIG is not the only group which is demanding control and respect. Also the [Turkish] ADHP gang (“Auf Der Horst Power”) are involved, and the members of the gang known as the KBB (“Kurdish Blood Brothers”) are on the move in the Garbsen Kronsberg-Quarter. A regional criminological analysis which the city of Garbsen commissioned in 2007 reported that these youth groups cause great uncertainty among the inhabitants. ‘That affects primarily older people and women’, says Constable Günter Hirche, the police liaison officer in Garbsen.”
Ingrid Spieckermann is a Lutheran theologian with the title of State Superintendent in the region. In a homily at the first church service after the fire she is quoted in yet a third article by the Hannoversche Allgemeine as follows (9 August 2013): “There are many small steps to a peaceful co-existence but there is no alternative.” The paper further reports that “she calls for the permanent improvement of the social structure in the housing area and that research into the causes is indispensable.” Here Spieckermann shows how the so-called “social justice” of the churches works; that is, how Christian charity, having become divorced from its roots, loses its native interiority and its inherent spirit of self-examination, becomes collectivised and metamorphoses into the ‘critical theory’ or cultural nihilism of Marxism. The causes of the arson are not to be found in the endogenous characteristics of the dominant ‘culture’ from which the immigrants come, but are due instead to external structural obstacles that German society is placing in their way, hence causing their anti-social behaviour. German society is the cause of the violence and the immigrant ‘youths’ are the victims.
Then, as if she were projecting her own cultural self-loathing, Spieckermann presents her theory about the motive and victim status of the arsonists:
“How could it come to pass that people lose respect? Such acts stem from a deep self-hatred. In this way the perpetrators do something to themselves.”
The Hannoversche Allgemeine does not report whether or not Ingrid Spieckermann had a plan as to how the German residents of the area ought to be protected.
The translated article is below.
Garbsen: Crystal Night of the Multicoloured Republic?
On 30 July 2013, for the first time in Germany, a Christian church was burned to the ground in Garbsen, accompanied by raucous bawling and caterwauling of the arsonists and their sympathisers. This scenario automatically calls to mind 9 November 1938 when synagogues were burned down. At that time too, blatant malice and schadenfreude prevailed in the presence of the flames. Does Garbsen stand as symbolic of the first Crystal Night of the Multicoloured Republic [Bunten Republik]?
(By C. Jahn)
To be clear at the outset, although the scenario in the early hours of 30 July in Garbsen evokes memories of 9 November 1938, both events permit comparisons only partially. They differ from each other quite considerably in respect to planning, organisation and scale. Similarities, however, exist in the political message which the arson contains and also in the expected political outcome.
The differences between Garbsen and the Reichskristallnacht of 1938 are apparent: in 1938 the state itself was the most important actor behind the scenes; in the vast majority of cases, the perpetrators were in the pay of the state; the fires were prepared with military precision and they were centrally co-ordinated. In 1938, it was not just one synagogue which burned, but a conflagration was conceived and implemented; and it was accompanied by a systematic terror in the streets against Jewish businesses and private homes, costing the lives of over 100 people.
Fortunately in 2013, in the Multicoloured Republic, we have not yet reached the point of the year 1938. In Garbsen it was not several churches that were burned to the ground, but only a single church. Private homes and businesses remained unmolested, at least on the night of the 29th to the 30th of June (not in the previous week [see introduction]), and no one was killed. Also absent was any sign of state, semi-governmental or parallel-governmental planning and direction. By all accounts received to date the arson was planned and carried out in an informally organised milieu. That the comparison with 1938 obtrudes itself of its own accord, however, is due to the scenario itself: the burning of a religious edifice of another ethnic group, the blatant joy of the onlookers belonging to the ethnic group of the alleged perpetrators, their “party mood”, their outright sympathy with the arsonists and their malice toward those affected by the fire — all that is readily familiar to us in Germany, since history is repeating itself anew, even if thus far it remains on a much smaller scale.
Setting a house of worship on fire always contains a political statement — precisely in the same way as setting fire to a town hall, department store or a bank is always political. All these buildings carry symbolic significance. Every violent act against these symbol-carriers is always a political act meant to convey a particular message: a message to the followers as well as the opponents. A burning department store in the years of the ’68-revolution was a political message to its own communist base and simultaneously a threat to the market-based state: violence signifies power. The burning synagogues of 1938 conveyed the same message: the unfettered use of violence against the synagogues, as Jewish ethno-religious symbol-edifices, signalled the unlimited power monopoly of the Nazi party to its followers, whilst the acts of arson functioned to intimidate the affected Jews, and, as a side effect, the domestic German opposition.
Also the burning down of the Willehadi-Kirche in Garbsen (most likely the perpetrators came from the violent eastern districts) fulfils this communicative function: it conveys a message to both followers and adversaries. Similar to Crystal Night in 1938 this message states: we have the power to use violence against the symbol-edifice of another ethnic group, wherever, however and whenever we want; hence we also have the power to use violence against this ethnic group itself, wherever, however and whenever we want. No one can deter us from the practice of violence, for we are in possession of power. And no one will punish us for it, because we also have the power at our disposal to escape prosecution. This message is not only understood with exactitude by the followers, the most radicalised Turkish and Arabian nationalists, Islamists and quasi-political criminals of the immigrant milieu, but it is also understood in many completely normal Turkish and Arab families who follow the political events very vigilantly, and while not actively approving such acts of arson to be sure, nevertheless by being silent they tolerate them, and are thoroughly impressed by the implied national and religious demonstration of power. But the ethnic “other”, declared as adversary by the perpetrators, also understands this message: from the religiously predisposed standpoint of the perpetrator, the Christian church is the most important symbol for the Germans. And although the politicians and the Evangelical Church of Germany do everything to play down the arson and hush it up (with the assistance of the press), the Germans in Garbsen, whether Christian or not, understand the handwriting on the wall.
The political consequence therefore points to parallels between 1938 and 2013. The first consequence is the intimidation of an identifiable ethnic group branded by the arsonists as the enemy: in the case of Garbsen, these are the Germans. Among the Germans in Garbsen, the burning church, as symbol of their ethno-religious identity, generates the feeling of a collective physical threat — it is the same feeling which the Jews of 1938 experienced in the presence of their burning synagogues, even if they were not personally religious at all. And the Germans of 2013 will react to this feeling in exactly the same way as the Jews of 1938, because in the face of the political constellation as a whole, they have no other choice whatsoever: they will withdraw, cringe away, keep their mouths shut and hope that everything will somehow turn out well — which, however, will not happen. And the Germans will leave Garbsen. They will leave Garbsen in exactly the same way the Jews left Garbsen in former times: out of anxiety and fear for their own lives and out of the knowledge that in an emergency no one will protect them.
The second consequence is the unmistakable increase in the power of the arsonists. For the suspected perpetrators and the political circles ideologically allied with them, Garbsen is, given the current state of affairs, a successful test case which gives a clear answer to the question which has remained open until now: — when their own churches begin to burn down, what will be the deportment of the official church which is currently the important ally within the framework of Turkish-Arabian colonisation [Landnahme])? The block parties are already on side for they are extensively infiltrated. But because of the religious barrier, the two official churches are difficult to infiltrate; and in consequence of their potential for opposition, at least in theory, they are still considered suspect as the traditional agency of the Christian Germans. This political uncertainty concerning the conduct of the churches in what is discernibly the upcoming and violent subsequent phase of the colonisation, now appears to be clarified after Garbsen: The Evangelical Church of Germany, by its completely conscious playing-down of the harm of the arson and its implicit partisan support of the alleged circle of the perpetrators [see introduction], has unmistakably signalled, that even in the case of a burning down of their own churches, they stand firmly on the side of the perpetrators of violence — an important political licence for them.
Therefore is Garbsen in 2013 the Crystal Night of the Multicoloured Republic? Yes and no. The ‘no’ is apparent in that there is too much of a discrepancy between the two events in organisation and scope. The ‘yes’, however, follows as much from the shocking external comparability of the two events as from their foreseeable political consequence: on the one hand there is the political strengthening of the arsonists, on the other hand there is the further revocation of political protection for the ethno-religious victims — the revocation of state support in any event — but now also ecclesiastical support. And just as 1938 did not mark the end of the progression, but was only an intermediate stage toward greater, and far graver dimensions, so too Garbsen will certainly not remain an isolated case. In the face of the complete ethno-political development in the Multicoloured Republic and the European neighbouring countries, where burning cities have long become the trademark of the multicoloured era, Garbsen too forms only a preliminary stage of that hellish inferno that awaits us in the coming years, a kind of test-arson. The burning church in Garbsen in all probability does not symbolically represent the end of a dangerous development for all of us; on the contrary, it stands only for its beginning.
The only big step toward “peace coexistance” is you an all of your kind being dead, Ingrid. Until you recognize that, you can expect there to be a lot more deadly “steps”.
Pingback: Links and news for Aug 9 2013 – 5 | Vlad Tepes
“how Christian charity, having become divorced from its roots, loses its native interiority and its inherent spirit of self-examination, becomes collectivised and metamorphoses into the ‘critical theory’ or cultural nihilism of Marxism.”
This is a brilliant analysis. Did the Baron write this?
No. If you look at the top, the heading of that section says: “Introductory Note from Rembrandt Clancy”, the translator.
It does look like something you would write.
Excellent article and analysis by C.Jahn,
Goebbels was a strategical and tactical genious. Of course, he was the architect of the “Reichskristallnacht” as the starting signal to every group of people in Germany of the awaiting “real” Holocoust.
My parallel to what happened in Garbsen, and the analysis of Mr Jahn, is the riots that took place in Stockholm, Sweden earlier this year. As far as I know, no churches were burned down. But the signals of power and violence to every group of people in Sweden were clear – exactly as Mr Jahn describes it.
The official “motivation” for the “Reichskristallnacht” was a 17-year old jewish boy’s murder of a german officer in Paris as a revenge for the deportation of his parents (If it ever happened that way.).
The “motivation” for the riots in Stockholm was a police officers killing of a man who threatened to cut their throats with a machete and didn’t stop by the warning shots of the police officers.
The alleged murder in Paris took place the 7th of November 1938. The “Reichkristallnacht” started the 9th of November. Spontanious reaction?
The pattern of the riots in Stockholm makes it totally impossible that they could have occurred without central leading. And they started almost immediately after the deadly action of the police officer. There are no doubts whatsoever – the actions were planned. Just as in Germany in 1938 – they just needed the start signal.
I won’t immediately claim that what happened to the church in Garbsen was organized as a part – and in Germany as a start – of an Islamic, global, invasional strategy. But according to my meaning – they are highly under suspicion.
You forgot to mention that in 1938 those Jews that were expelled prior to Kristallnacht were illegal immigrants from Poland. The Poles refused to take them back, so they were stuck between the borders of Nazi Germany and Poland. Finally, the Poles admitted them, and put them into “detention camps”. Ernst vom Rath, the diplomat in Paris, was shot by the teen because vom Rath told him that he couldn’t help him gain permits for his parents to return to Germany, as they were Polish citizens and had no immigration visas.
Dear Stefan,
As far as I knew in advance, you are probably right about these facts.
But my point is another one, and my evidences are the timings. Far to rapid extremely violent reactions to “minor incidents”.
I must admit that I am not terribly astute to various religious denominations. I was a bit confused when an Evangelical church was burned and a Lutheran spokesperson made a comment. My husband and I had to get on Google to figure out if Lutheran was Evangelical. We concluded it is not. This is just an aside to my primary comment.
So, a Lutheran spokesperson gave a homily about the structural barriers of
German society (read Christian society) to non-Christian (read Muslim Turks) which has resulted in the arsonists actually being the victims?
How twisted must one be to self loath in this way? And yes, what an abandonment I would feel if I were sitting in that church listening to that homily. I like to think I would have stood up, shouted something profane at that woman and walked out.
Much has been said of the recent bankruptcy of the City of Detroit. As far as I have gleaned, after the 67′ riots an exodus occurred; those that could get out did. That left the city bereft of a tax paying, working population with a non productive under class unable to pay for the services it demanded. I think the same is happening in municipalities all over Europe, only this time it is the uneducated Muslim population driving out the indigenous population with a work ethic and sense of fair play.
If I live long enough it will be sadly interesting to hear what the state of the city of Garbsen is 10 years hence. In any event, based on the naive statements of the Lutheran spokesperson I would conclude that not only does the German gov’t have no intention of protecting my rights but neither do the Christian orgs in the vicinity.
How much more of this are the Germans willing to take? Think about it; you are now allowing the control of your well being and places of worship to Turkish Muslim thugs and… at least one denomination of Christianity wants to blame you for it? Time to move…
Actually, it is quite possible to be both Evangelical and Lutheran in Germany (and in the U.S.). In Germany, the “Evangelical” label seems to originate with a union of traditional Lutheran churches and Reformed (Calvinist) churches, though it’s somewhat complicated:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/615525/United-Evangelical-Lutheran-Church-of-Germany
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America came from a merger of three separate Lutheran denominations.
I believe you are correct. In my experience of speaking to Germans re: their Christian religious orientation, if one is a Lutheran he identifies himself as an Evangelist, while a Roman Catholic identifies himself as a Catholic.
Actually, Martin Luther was the originator of the term evangelical. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia on the subject….
The name Lutheran originated as a derogatory term used against Luther by German Scholastic theologian Dr. Johann Maier von Eck during the Leipzig Debate in July 1519. Eck and other Roman Catholics followed the traditional practice of naming a heresy after its leader, thus labeling all who identified with the theology of Martin Luther as Lutherans. Martin Luther always disliked the term, preferring instead to describe the reform movement with the term “Evangelical”, which was derived from euangelion, a Greek word meaning “good news”, i.e. “Gospel.” The followers of John Calvin also began to use that term. To distinguish the two evangelical groups, others began to call them “Evangelical Lutheran” and “Evangelical Reformed.” In time the word “Evangelical” came to be dropped. Eventually Lutherans themselves began to use the term in the middle of the 16th century in order to distinguish themselves from other groups, such as Philippists and Calvinists. In 1597, theologians in Wittenberg defined the title “Lutheran” as referring to the true church.
Thank you all for the clarification. As is now obvious, my knowledge of Christian religions, other than Catholicism, would fit on the head of a pin!
I imagine the fifth column is uniformly brainwashed in the koranic program that Christian society must be destroyed incrementally over time – the death of a thousand cuts. We gave them the in and seem to be facilitating our own demise all the way. Beggars belief really.
As it is a certain brand of Christianity, a Lutheran one that over-emphasizes the Sermon on the Mount, that brought us in this mess in the first place, I think this arson is a good thing. In time, DSCI-warlords will capture mosques, and dedicate them to Yashu3a, the leader of Ten-Tribed Israel.
The centuries pass, and the Turk remains the Turk.
The German becomes a fool.
As a Christian who often attends Lutheran services, I invite this Ingrid dhimmi to wake up, pray for understanding, read her Bible’s admonition for Christians to be “as wise as serpents”, and stop blaming the victim.
Ingrid, do you even believe in Jesus? If so, why are you supporting Allah, a.k.a. Satan? Your life and family are gifts from God; if you won’t defend them, you are basically holding God’s gift in contempt.
Okay, you don’t have to own a gun -that’s your right.
You don’t have to believe in Jesus -that may be your choice (I hope not).
But when ‘culturally-enriched youths’ kick down your door, the first thing you’re going to do is call someone with a gun and pray they get there in time.
The Christian Church is never more faithful than when it is persecuted and despised. And Western Christianity is inextricably entwined into the values of personal responsibility, individual freedom, and self-reliance which form the core strength of Western Civilization, and its truly revolutionary capacity to challenge and overthrow totalitarianism.
I admire the faith of Christians elsewhere in the world, let there be no doubt. But Chinese Christians will never rise up and overthrow Beijing. The Copts are never going to form militias to fight Islamic governance. They are faithful, but challenging the existing order of society isn’t part of that faith.
It is part of the faith of Europeans. Even those that are “post-Christian”, because their faith is in the value and eternal significance of the individual.
That faith created the churches of Europe, but it doesn’t reside there. It resides in the hearts of every strong, independent, responsible individual in Europe. They will not need authorities to tell them what to do, neither will they lack for heroes to emulate and rally around when the crisis comes.
No, this final bedrock of individualism will not prevent the treachery of the elites and the perfidy of Islam from destroying or despoiling all the great wealth that made Europe an inviting target for those inclined to live by plunder. It will not save the lives of anyone who is not willing to fight for their own survival. There may, in the end, be nothing left of Europe but the land and the true descendants of its native peoples. But Islam will not conquer Europe.
I must wonder, though. Will Europe, after having suffered so greatly, permit Islam to exist anywhere on the earth?
‘ But Islam will not conquer Europe ‘. On the evidence
observed so far, that is EXACTLY what it will do, the only
question is how long have we got. You didn’t offer any
explanation for your statement. For us to ‘ Deal with ‘
Islam before it deals with us, we have to leave our comfort zones behind, maybe forever, and fight fire with fire. Islam is a bully, and a bully can be bullied by a
bigger, more terrifying and more violent bully. That is all a bully understands. Recognising that the problem needs
massive self-sacrifice, commitment and organisation. It isn’t going to happen.
Hold a rally to legalize abortion in Saudi-Arabia. Hold placards with the portrait of George Soros. Think of the International Population Conference in Cairo of 1994.
I may be overly fond of Western Christianity and its virtues. But my estimation is that, when Europeans have nothing left to lose, they will indeed be more than a match for the Islamic invasion.
The fiat currency crisis, for all that it was clearly engineered to destroy Western Civilization, is actually quite timely. When the people realize that their traitorous governments have nothing to back their edicts but worthless paper (and even more worthless electronic zeros), they will begin to disobey. And once the violence starts, I’ll bet on the native Europeans against the Muslims…the clear numerical advantage doesn’t hurt.
To resist Islam while preserving the wealth and society of Europe would take a massive economic commitment and political organization. And that is why I do not hold out hope for the preservation of the modern social institutions of Europe (aside from the fact that, by and large, they are part of the betrayal against the native peoples).
But when all else is lost, the people of Europe will rise and visit destruction on the followers of the Koran such that they will not forget it in a thousand years…even if any Muslims are left alive to remember.
It will not recall the dead. It will not rebuild the European Union. I leave the dead in the hands of God, and may the devil take the EU. As for the Muslims, they chose to start this fight, I will not protest whatever the people of Europe may think just reward for that.
Of course, it is easy for apologists to point out that Reichskristalnacht was carried out by SA goons under the orders of the Nazi state while real police and fire departments stood by. True enough. Yet, the threat still exists, much as it did in the 1930s. Ask any Jew still living in Europe. The burning of the Garbsen church, apparently in the absence of a convenient synagogue, signifies that the hostile “youth” living in their midst from one city to the next has no respect for anybody that is different from them even though they are the minority fighting against the established civil order.
The fact of the matter is that Europeans have a significantly large and hostile minority bent on destroying the society they live in. These are not just restless juvenile delinquents resorting to arson; they are following an ideology and drawing inspiration from their elders, not necessarily their horrified parents, but radical imams in local mosques and those abroad, like Yusuf al Qaradawi, whose hateful words are carried to Islamic communities across the western world. Fortunately, for a variety of factors, the US and Canada do not see this type of street violence from our Muslim minority. Instead, we are having to deal with the isolated cases of violence from radicalized individuals.
It is time for Christians to recognize that they are under just as much threat as the Jews. One way or another, all Europeans are learning that the climate of fear is increasing. Europe is no longer a peaceful, relatively crime free continent that has finally learned its painful lesson from two world wars and the Holocaust. The 1930s are back only in different form. The violence happening in European cities is an outgrowth of hate-fed by a hateful ideology directed not only at Jews, but at Christians as well. Unfortunately European Christians have mostly set aside their Christianity and thus, don’t feel they have anything to protect in that regard. Similarly, they are surrendering their liberties to a state that submits to the threat and prohibits anyone speaking out about the 900 pound gorilla stalking the streets and plazas of the once-great European cities. What is left to defend except their very safety?
That is why you get politically-correct European newspapers trying to navigate the mine field of acceptable speech in defining the problem that should be very easy to define. However, you cannot deal with a problem until you define it.
I think that in Prussia there was originally an Evangelical/Calvinist group of Protestants, as well as a Lutheran group, and very little else, and the Kaiser forced them to merge, as he wanted everyone in Prussia to belong to the same church. I think that the result was Lutheranism with a Calvinistic flavor.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was ordained in the Evangelical Church of the Old Prussian Union, but I think he considered himself to be “Lutheran”. But there are also other church denominations that originated in Germany that contain the word Evangelical, for instance, the “Evangelical and Free Church”. It is all somewhat confusing.
The Lord God Jehovah has always had a short way with pretense. The Christian is commanded to worship in Spirit and in Truth. It is known that Lutheranism in its present form has been State-Sponsored since World War II and possibly before then. Was this church that was burned a sanctified meeting place for those born-again believers who worshipped God out of love and had Jesus Christ His Son as Lord and Savior, or was it merely a building that houses a weekly enclave socially acceptable and state-sponsored pretension? If there had been any who were truly born again and Christian, they would have most likely been there the morning after on their knees in prayer and repentance for having allowed their love of God and Faith in Him to have been compromised by the State’s involvement and patronage. Sadly, that did not occur nor was it reported by the press, (as it would have most likely been as such a scene would have been newsworthy). God throughout His Word has used Midianites to judge idolatry, and so He has here as well. The building, and the state sponsorship of it was worshipped, not God Himself. So He had some Midianites burn the building and the parsonage down. Now will we please get REAL about our faith in God, Love of Christ, and our calling as those who bear Jesus’ Holy Name!
“The 1930s are back only in different form. The violence happening in European cities is an outgrowth of hate-fed by a hateful ideology directed not only at Jews, but at Christians as well. Unfortunately European Christians have mostly set aside their Christianity and thus, don’t feel they have anything to protect in that regard. Similarly, they are surrendering their liberties to a state that submits to the threat and prohibits anyone speaking out about the 900 pound gorilla stalking the streets and plazas of the once-great European cities. What is left to defend except their very safety?”
And this replay of the 1930s–including a supine, compliant ruling class and an intimidated, terrified public–portends only two possible resolutions: 1) gradual disintegration of Western society and the final triumph of Mohammed’s mad dream; 2) a second coming of totalitarianism in Western form, to destroy without fear or favor on the assumed authority of acting for the public welfare. Please, tell me I am wrong!
I am afraid you are not wrong.
Pingback: The Silence of the Lutherans | Gates of Vienna
Pingback: Hackneyed Phrases from the State Bishop | Gates of Vienna