Category Archives: Stupidity

You’re Nothing But a Pack of Cards!

Posted on by
3

Off with her head!’ the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.

‘Who cares for you?’ said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) ‘You’re nothing but a pack of cards!’

— Lewis Carroll, from Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland

In case you’ve been traversing the Antarctic, and have been without an Internet connection for the last few days, Donald Trump has caused a new uproar in the media and among the chatterati. His latest offense was to tell the “Squad” (four communist congressbabes: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley) that if they hate America so much, they should just get on back to where they came from.

Progressive apoplexy ensued. Even though it was obvious that Mr. Trump had directed his remarks specifically towards the non-native Ilhan Omar, the media went into high dudgeon on behalf of all four “women of color” — as if Occasional Cortex were any more colored than I am.

Further details would be tedious and are not worth listing here. If you’re interested, and can stomach these Progressive outlets, here’s the media’s take on Donald Trump’s latest demonstration of “racism”:

Among the non-Woke, opinion is divided on the effectiveness of the president’s latest sally against the socialist Multicults.

In favor of Mr. Trump: He is forcing Nancy Pelosi to give full support to the four congressgendernonbinaries she had just tried to distance herself from. Last week they were anathema to the Speaker of the House; this week they are victims of racist abuse. The president has driven Ms. Pelosi into a corner where she has no choice but to embrace the four people she knows are destroying the Democrats’ chances of holding onto the House next year.

Against Mr. Trump: The president has played into the hands of those who label him a “racist”. He will alienate those undecided voters who might otherwise be leaning towards the Republicans.

Regardless of whether he is pursuing a winning or losing strategy — only time will tell — Mr. Trump is obviously following my advice and refusing to play the game. The huge furor over his first tweets about the Squad did not deter him in the slightest — the day after his initial tweets he doubled down on his theme, elaborating on the Squad’s hatred of America. He’s not at all concerned about being called a “racist”.

In other words, he declined to play the game — the currently accepted, universal Progressive game of forcing non-Progressives to backpedal and try to prove to the world that they do not deserve to be called “racists”.

Continue reading →

“If We Don’t Speak Now”

Posted on by
2

“If we don’t speak now”

by Tabitha Korol

“Speak now or forever hold your peace” is based upon the marriage liturgy of the Christians’ Book of Common Prayer. Today it may refer to our self-monitoring for the irrational fear of not being politically correct.

After reading my essay, “An Assumption of Dignity” on the Internet, a reader commented, “I circulated it to our editorial board who found it very moving. However, based entirely on the reality of it not being ‘politically correct,’ I am recommending that it will not be posted on our educational site. That said, given its compelling nature, I will circulate it privately and selectively.”

This poignant communication appears to be from an academic, in a corporate or military milieu, who wants to share it but is constrained by a fear of being classified “intolerant”. In years past, he’d have thought nothing about forwarding and posting the article with his observations on said educational site. Today, in this post-Obama era, he is threatened by the vitriol that would explode were he to dispatch ideas antithetical to those of people who set the political agenda, intimidated by the possibilities that harm would come to his family, and concerned that he could be summarily dismissed from his position if the first two and harassed if the third.

Although our First Amendment remains unchanged, with its protections extended to all individuals in the United States, the writer nevertheless reasoned that sharing information contradictory to the views of the ruling class could offend and must be done surreptitiously and with extreme caution. He is judicious and self-monitoring, but feeling defenseless in his isolated position; he is slowly conforming to “the plan.” Guarded, he is gradually growing fearful of and more submissive to those in power.

The purveyors of hate-speech accusations work to divide us into groups based on their immutable features — race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, family breakdown, and views on innumerable subjects. They have always existed in history but are far more forcefully promoted by those who now hold sway over our schools, government, and the workplace. When these were still insufficient to more completely affect our massive population, the ruling class devised issues for additional divisiveness — climate, abortion and post-partum infanticide, American monuments and symbols, slavery and LGBTQ reparations, a unique foreign invasion, and so many more. And when our young adults leave the schools to join the mainstream of American life, they will take with them not only their learned prejudices, but also their ways of stifling the free speech of others who would dare to disagree.

The left has worked doggedly to insert their values into our lives, and because they use compassion as their tactic, traditional Americans failed to see that the compassion was highly selective. Compassion for the mother is denied the unborn child; compassion for the gender-confused is denied the healthy heterosexual; compassion for the Muslim newcomer is denied the indigenous Christian and Jew. We have even witnessed the compassion shown more for the criminal than for his victim in a court of law.

This selective compassion is denied our President, a man who serves his country selflessly, even donating his paychecks to worthy causes. Why does the Left rant about President Trump, insult his every sentence, mannerism, activity? For one thing, it serves to comfort the Left, to keep them engaged with trivia to dodge the discomfort of acknowledging his triumphs. For another, and perhaps the crux of the issue, is that when they cannot suppress his speech, they can still suppress what they hear. They impose their will on others by censoring what’s available to the public, such as on Google, Facebook and Twitter, and discredit the rest. The Shangri La for the left is when society is so controlled that it becomes self-censoring. We are almost there.

Continue reading →

What is Citizenship?

Posted on by
6

The following essay by JLH was occasioned by his translation of the previous post.

What is Citizenship?

by JLH

According to the Federal Statistical Office a person has immigration background if that person or at least one parent was not born a German citizen. The definition comprises the following individuals: 1) foreigners, whether immigrants or not; 2) naturalized citizens, whether immigrants or not; 3) (recent) ethnic re-settlers; and 4) progeny of the first three groups born with German citizenship.

I have been reading the phrase “German with immigration background” defined above, and not really understanding it. It is a way of looking at your citizens that is — pun intended — quite foreign to me. I did realize that “pure French” or “pure German” etc. meant something different to the citizens of an ethnically homogeneous country. But I did not understand how closely it was possible to examine that ethnicity. Some thoughtful Germans have been advocating a revision of the categories described above.

Germans have for some time been reacting to Muslim and other immigrants to their country, who have coined phrases for the resident population such “Scheissdeutsche” (S*** Germans). Unlike the French, Dutch, Swedes, et alii, they are also asked by their neighbors and their own self-appointed consciences to remember that they deserve this, because of what their parents and grandparents did or did not do.

I do not and never have denied the Holocaust. How could I? I was one of the children who got money for a ticket to the Saturday morning cartoon show at the local theater. In those days, you never got to see anything — cartoons, feature film, etc., without first seeing the News of the Day. And the news never ran in those days without a new clip on the liberated death camps.

And since I first heard of it through things like Franz Werfel’s gripping novel The Forty Days of Musa Dagh, I have never doubted or denied the Armenian Genocide. There are many terrible massacres in history, but these two are alive for me, because I have had friends and acquaintances who are the children of those who survived.

Knowing these things does not oblige me to hate Germans or Turks. My Jewish friends have taught me that much. I also do not hate the English because of my wife’s Scots and Irish Gaelic ancestry. I do reserve the right to be indignant at and even contemptuous of the modern-day deniers of Ataturk’s reforms or Churchill’s egalitarianism.

Being an American “of a certain age,” I grew up with the conviction that the Founding Fathers were heroes, the Constitution was a new way to look at the rule of law, and our prosperity came largely from our desire to work — and think — for ourselves.

Those who truly despise freedom of thought and speech have been hard at work to undo those “illusions” of mine. And seeing the tortuous attempts of German statisticians to come to grips with what it means and implies to be “German,” I ask myself, What is it that makes an American? Ethnicity? Don’t make me laugh!

Continue reading →

The Majority Population in German Cities is Facing Its End

Posted on by
23

A number of German cities are no longer populated mainly by Germans — a trend that will increase in coming years.

Many thanks to JLH for translating this article from the Neue Zürcher Zeitung:

The Majority Population in German Cities is Facing Its End

by Michael Rasch
July 9, 2019

Frankfurt am Main, Offenbach, Heilbronn, Sindelfingen — in these and other cities, Germans with no immigration background are still the largest group, but are no longer an absolute majority. That affects West Germany more than the East, and cities more than non-urban areas.

As early as the 1980s, the Greens were propagating Multiculti — a multicultural society. Although it had already begun some time before, the very thought of it was hair-raising for some voters. This reality has been accentuated in recent decades. Although the phrase is somewhat out of style. Nowadays, we talk of diversity and mixed society. Meanwhile, the majority society is approaching its end in German cities. That means that Germans who have no immigration background (as defined by the Federal Office of Statistics) are no longer the statistical majority (>50%), but are just the largest of three groups, with foreigners and Germans with an immigration background.

Frankfurt is the Vanguard

The majority society has already ceased to exist in Frankfurt am Main. This is also true for some smaller cities like Offenbach (only 37% still native German), Heilbronn, Sindelfingen and Pforzheim, explains the immigration expert Jens Schneider, who does research at the University of Osnabrück. The same thing will happen soon in several other German cities. In early 2018, according to the city’s statistical yearbook, 46.9% were native Germans. Germans with immigration background were 23.6% and foreigners — 53.1% together. The proportion of native Germans has declined in recent decades. The 50% threshold was first crossed in 2015 with 48.8%. Schneider rejects putting Germans with immigration background and foreigners in the same pot, and, like many of his colleagues, advocates revising the categories. The concept of immigration background gives a false impression. In fact, ca. two thirds of all children of Germans with immigration background (including children of foreigners) are born in Germany. They are therefore German and would often have the prospect of a much better professional career than their parents.

There Is No More Majority Society

By present reckoning, Frankfurt a.M. is probably the only major city where the majority society has flipped, with Germans with an immigration background and foreigners at 53.1%. According to the “Intercultural Integration Report of 2017” of the city of Munich, Nuremberg (44.6%), Stuttgart (44.1%), Munich (43.2%) and Düsseldorf (40.2%) also show high percentages of foreigners and Germans with immigration background.

Continue reading →

The Utrecht Tram Mujahid Goes on Trial

Posted on by
8

On the March 18 of this year a culture-enricher killed four people in a mass shooting on a tram in the Dutch city of Utrecht. The police said it sort of appeared to be a terrorist attack, but they were never quite sure of the shooter’s motive — despite the fact that he told them he had committed the attack in the name of his religion.

The following video is taken from a TV news report about the trial of the Utrecht tram jihadi. Many thanks to C for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:


Video link

Video transcript:

Continue reading →

Reality is Showing Its Ugly Face

Posted on by
66

Our Dutch correspondent H. Numan sends this report on the latest cultural enrichment news from The Netherlands, especially as it concerns public swimming pools.

Reality is showing its ugly face

by H. Numan

Let’s start in the past. When I was a young man, the first cohort of young ‘Dutch’ muslims was growing up in The Netherlands. They were mainly Turkish boys, at that time much more of a problem than Moroccans. Public swimming pools were becoming unsafe for girls, because those muslim boys grabbed them where they shouldn’t. What was done? Why, nothing, of course! Pretty soon after that Moroccans proudly carried the banner of being the most unruly, violent community. Muslims started to realize they could gain political power — for themselves. Pim Fortuyn was murdered and Geert Wilders appeared on the scene.

We had a minister of justice, Piet Hein Donner. He said — or more accurately, lied: “If 75% of the Dutch population wants shariah law, then there is nothing to stop democracy from becoming a shariah society”. Let’s start here. The Dutch population has absolutely no say in it. It’s parliament (Second Kamer or congress and the First Kamer or senate) who decide that. Yes, I’ll grant him that this is next to impossible.

Legally, shariah must be presented as a law. Both houses have to vote on it, and pass it with a 75% majority. After that the government and both chambers resign and new elections are called. The next government will bring the law again in motion. Only if again 75% of both chambers vote ‘aye’ is shariah law valid in The Netherlands. Next to impossible, in other words. If you were do it the democratic way, that is.

Now, how democratic our bearded fiends are? Not at all. It’s a blasphemous concept to them. Erdogan himself said openly ‘democracy is the train we take towards shariah’. How difficult is it to put serious pressure on 150 members of parliament and 75 senators? Their family members? Friends and relatives? Or their party superiors? We as a nation simply haven’t got that many police available for their protection. That’s the first attempt. They won’t rest if the vote were to be ‘no’. That means another round of voting and violence. We have to protect the new MPs and senators and their families and their friends and their party officials as well.

May I remind you of 1572, the start of the Dutch revolt? It started with a bang, with the Beeldenstorm or Great Iconoclasm. Catholic churches were ransacked, and craven idols removed. At that time about 65% of the population was Roman Catholic. Of the remainder, the vast majority were Lutheran. Only 7% were Calvinists. Both Roman Catholic and Lutheran Dutch were open for negations with the king of Spain (Phillip II).

Now, the king was somewhat inflexible. For him, either you were catholic or you were barbecued. No other options. But compromises are usually possible, even with one party being inflexible. It was the 7% Calvinists who started the open revolt, and later gained control of the country. That was with 7% extremists in our population. Currently the inflexibles are at least 9%.

Calvinists aren’t exactly the first thing on your mind when thinking about extremely violent religious zealots. They have mellowed somewhat over the ages. The same goes for Christianity in general: even the Westboro Baptists are well behaved choirboys compared with the average muslim. In the 16th century, however, they were the Al Quackies of the age.

Which brings us to the news from today. The Dutch news is full with stories of young muslim boys raping girls in swimming pools, preferably the ‘tropical swimming resorts’. Not fondling. Not ogling, but raping. Young is relative here. We’re talking about gangs of boys of all ages, up to and including adults.

Continue reading →

Ann Widdecomb Tells the BBC to Get Stuffed

Posted on by
27

Or words to that effect.

Yesterday I posted a brief clip of Ann Widdecomb’s remarks on the floor of the European Parliament. Ms. Widdecomb represents Southwest England for the Brexit Party, and stated forthrightly in her speech her reasons for being glad that the UK will be leaving the European Union.

The woke mandarins who run the BBC were appalled by Ms. Widdecomb’s doubleplus ungood statements, and invited her to be interviewed so they could revile her in an appropriate fashion. They sent the cutest and most clueless airheaded blond SJW in their stable (can I say that, or is it equinophobia?) to do the job. The interviewer stuck to the script, but in my opinion she got dumped out of her saddle and dragged by the stirrups down the steep and rocky hillside of Ms. Widdecomb’s rhetoric.

I hope we see a lot more of this admirable woman:

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes.

Life Among the Migrants for a “Stupid German Working Robot”

Posted on by
17

Christiane Soler is a former volunteer refugee-helper in Germany. When she volunteered to work with the migrants, she whole-heartedly embraced the “Welcoming Culture”. But the reality of the ungrateful, misogynous, violent “refugees” changed her mind. And unlike most Germans, she was willing to violate the consensus and publicly describe what she experienced.

Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:


Video link

Video transcript:

Continue reading →

The Sea-Watch 3: A German Perspective

Posted on by
8

The video below is an appropriate follow-up to the previous post, which featured Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini discussing the Sea-Watch 3, a migrant-ferry vessel captained by a German woman that attempted to run the Italian blockade at the port of Lampedusa.

I’m especially impressed by the calm, objective reporting by the television reporter, as exemplified by his description of Mr. Salvini as “a loud-mouthed right-wing populist”.

Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:


Video link

The report below from Politically Incorrect (also translated by MissPiggy) analyzes the above video and asks some pertinent questions about it:

What is the current role of the German press in human trafficking?

This past Thursday, the Sea-Watch 3 invaded Italian territorial waters, contrary to an explicit ban by the country’s government. The German professional tugboat captain Carola Rackete, now in Italian custody, had taken in “42 refugees rescued from distress at sea” off the Libyan coast to present herself to the world as a noble saviour. For this she needed a port of destination (or maybe not), but all European countries had refused her up until then. You read correctly: every European country, not only naughty Italy.

So on June 27th, with a grandstanding pose in front of the camera (0:21 min) she announces that she will enter the port of Lampedusa: “I will proceed into the port. Be informed! I will proceed into the port. Over.”

That’s just what a noble person from Germany does, who wants to serve as a role model for the world. The cameras for the show were provided by NDR [German taxpayer-funded TV], which was “embedded” on the Sea-Watch with two journalists. Why were they there, and since when? Just two of several questions that the critical observer has to ask himself. The NDR journalists had reported this previously from the Sea-Watch entering the Italian port:

From reporter Jonas Schreieck:

After pictures showing the unfortunate condition of the poor “refugees” (0:33 min), Schreieck says that the mood is tense, that nearby Lampedusa is, “only a stone’s throw away”, “was a glimmer of hope for the rescued”, but alas now the police are on board. Then the presenter of the programme adds that the Italian Minister of the Interior (Salvini) is known as a “loud-mouthed right-wing populist” and gave a speech full of rage.

The second reporter Nadia Kailouili in the video from June 27 2019 (from 0:31 min) says:

“Yes, the captain went into the territorial waters of Italy yesterday. She has had rescued people on board for more than 15 days now and since then has not received any promise from a European port to take the people to safety.” Kailouili also describes the contact with the Italian authorities as a deplorable condition of the poor “refugees”.

As you can see, the establishment’s reporting is right in line with Merkel’s state doctrine, no critical questions. However, we at PI News, as a non-mainstream news blog would have, liked to have an answer to the following questions:

1.   For how long have NDR journalists been at Sea-Watch? For how long was the stay planned, how long was it actually?
2.   Were they only there as a couple or with other employees (camera, sound) on board? How many in total?
3.   What was the reason that the NDR employees went on board?
4.   Were the circumstances of the “rescue” questioned (position of the damaged boat, why it became unseaworthy, cooperation of Sea-Watch with the human trafficking mafia)? If so, when will it be reported?
5.   Is/was the NDR aware that Interior Minister Salvini would probably have allowed the refugees ashore immediately if other European countries had agreed to accept them?
6.   How did the NDR journalists get onboard (helicopter, ship)?
7.   What was the cost of the transfer of the NDR team to Italy, and from there to the ship, as well as the entire stay (approximate information)?
 

We kindly ask the NDR to answer these questions. As usual, we will publish the answer unchanged and unabridged. But since we know that transparency and openness are not the strength of the NDR, we rather expect that the NDR will not answer us. Of course, the broadcaster knows about this article, because the employees regularly read along on our website. Furthermore, with the publication of this article, we also sent an email with the link to the NDR.

In addition, we would like to ask our readers to address some of the questions to the NDR in a slightly modified form. Should you receive an answer, we will be happy to publish it at PI News.

Contact Information:

Norddeutscher Rundfunk
Lutz Marmor (Intendant)
Rothenbaumchaussee 132
20149 Hamburg
Tel. 00 49 (040) 4156 – 0
Fax 00 49 (040) 44 76 02
E-Mail: ndr@ndr.de

Video transcript:

Continue reading →

Shaky Angie: Climate Change Made Her Do It!

Posted on by
7

Many years ago Richard Thompson wrote a song called “Shaky Nancy”*. I reckon we need an updated version now called “Shaky Angie” in honor of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who on two separate occasions recently was visibly trembling over her entire body. During the attack she suffered in Ukraine, the tremors were fairly extreme, based on the video.

According to Annalena Baerbock, the co-chair of the Green Party in Germany, Mrs. Merkel’s condition was induced by climate change. The chancelloress is evidently only the latest victim of the Climate Change Shakes.

Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:


Video link

Video transcript:

Continue reading →

Geert Wilders, Holocaust Denier

Posted on by
1

Geert Wilders declined to attend the most recent court session in the latest “hate speech” trial against him — he had better things to do with his time. In his absence, various fruits ’n’ nuts testified on behalf of the prosecution.

The PVV sends this translated report about the latest shenanigans.

Absent Wilders is linked to Holocaust at the ‘fewer Moroccans’ trial

Geert Wilders refused to listen to the “nonsense” of the “victims” of his fewer-Moroccan statements. He stayed away from his trial. And so missed allegations that Wilders “wants to set in motion a Holocaust.”

When the Court of Justice sits down in the courtroom at Schiphol in the morning, the seat of the PVV leader appears empty. The judges have to settle with a tweet from Wilders. “I’m just going to work in the Lower House today.” Because Wilders has no desire to hear ‘the nonsense’of ‘so-called injured parties’.

Who are mainly ‘decent citizens’, rooted Turkish and Moroccan Dutchmen, who were ‘deeply hurt’ by Wilders, watching television in March 2014, their lawyers say.

But the trial has also brought forward declarations with more remarkable motives. Jeroen de Kreek gets the opportunity to speak. He argues that Wilders actually used the word Moroccans ‘euphemistically’. Wilders’ words were, he says, directed against Jews. “It is terrorism-related deception. His great heroes are Jew-haters.” They were ‘behind the Second World War and the Holocaust’. In fact, De Kreek argues, Wilders’ statements could ‘trigger a next Holocaust’.

De Kreek says that he is also a victim because of his Jewish origin. After all, Wilders’ statements are equivalent to ‘Juden raus’, he argues.

The court hears it all unmoved, but the lawyers for the others who claim to be affected sighs. ‘We don’t want to be in the same corner with him,’ one will later say in the corridor.

Jews

After all, De Kreek is no stranger, not even in the Wilders trial. A former lawyer himself, he was already convicted of insulting Jews. He previously denied the Holocaust himself, via his websites, and was even considered completely of unsound mind by the court in Amsterdam after he had threatened Minister Jeanine Hennis at the time. His statements could ‘best be ignored’ because of his narcissistic personality disorder and chronic psychoses.

Continue reading →

The Greens Will Build the PRC in Germany

Posted on by
6

On two recent occasions German Chancellor Angela Merkel has displayed severe and obvious whole-body tremors — what you might call the Rattlesnake Shake.

The first video below shows video excerpts from both those shaky occasions, particularly the most recent one. The second video uses the first incident as a jumping-off point to speculate about the possible ascendancy of the Greens — who got the largest share of the vote in the recent European Parliamentary elections — after the all-but-inevitable ouster of Mrs. Merkel and her replacement by a palatable CDU cardboard cutout such as AKK. This clip uses excerpts from an interview with Robert Habeck of the Green Party in which he explicitly declares his goal to be the establishment of a People’s Republic of Germany along the lines of the one in China.

Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translations, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling.

Video #1: The Shakes


Video link

Video #2: The Greens


Video link

Video transcript #1:

Continue reading →

Edwin Wagensveld Arrested in Eindhoven for Having Bricks Thrown at Him

Posted on by
4

Edwin Wagensveld is the leader of the Dutch chapter of Pegida. Last weekend, when they were preparing for a demonstration in front of a mosque, he and his colleagues were pelted with eggs and bricks. In the end, however, it was only the Pegida demonstrators — including Mr. Wagensveld — who were arrested.

Long-time readers will remember Edwin Wagensveld as the man who was arrested three years ago for wearing a pig hat at a demonstration.

Many thanks to C for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:


Video link

Video transcript:

Continue reading →