Dialog International

The (Nazi) Girl Next Door

Next week the trial of Beate Zschäpe, member of the National Socialist Underground, begins in Munich.  Ms. Zschäpe is charge with being an accessory to the murder of ten people, mostly individuals with Turkish background, during a six-year racist rampage throughout Germany.

Ms. Zschäpe was described by neighbors as a "nice girl" (herzensgut) who unfortunately fell in with the wrong men. Whatever role she played in the murders was performed out of loyalty or love, not any political conviction.  This brings of up the cliché of the "Nazi Bride" (Nazibraut), those naive women who stay home to cook and clean while their Nazi menfolk are out knocking heads or - in this case - killing people in cold blood. 

But the cliché is completely wrong, according to Das Forschungs- netzwerk Frauen und Rechtsextremismus (Research Network Women and Right-wing Extremism). The women involved in the neo-Nazi groups are hardly passive fellow travelers (Mitläuferinnen). Rather, they are often key players - even instigators - of right-wing violence, and are often more fanatical than their boyfriends or husbands.  The Forschungsnetzwerk published an open letter - (pdf warning)  concerning the upcoming trial of Beate Zschäpe, urging the court to take her participation in the NSU seriously: 

Ohne das Engagement von Mädchen und Frauen würde die extreme Rechte weder lebensweltlich noch ideologisch funktionieren: sie sind aktiver Part in Skinheadgruppen, Kameradschaften, extrem rechten Parteien und Terrorgruppen. Häufig üben sie Funktionen in den Bereichen Vernetzung, Kommunikation, Organisation, Logistik, Finanzierung, Tarnung, Recherche- und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit aus und übernehmen damit Aufgaben, ohne die extrem rechte Terrorakte, Morde und Überfälle kaum denkbar wären. Zum anderen sind auch in der Vergangenheit seit 1945 extrem rechte Frauen als Anstifterinnen,vorbereitende Kaderinnen, Fluchthelferinnen und gewalttätige Täterinnen in Erscheinung getreten und dafür zum Teil zu Haftstrafen verurteilt worden. All dies steht im Widerspruch zum Versuch extrem rechter Frauenorganisationen, die Gewaltbereitschaft der Szene zu leugnen und für eine vermeintliche „Politik derHarmlosigkeit“ einzustehen.

(The extreme right-wing would not be able to function tactically or ideologically without the active engagement of girls and women: they are active participants in skinhead groups, Kameradschaften, right-wing extremist parties and terror groups.  Often they play critical roles in coordination, communication, organization, logistics, finance, concealment, research and public relations and therefore take on tasks that are essential for the carrying out of of terrorist acts, murder, and assaults. In the past, since 1945, extreme right-wing women have been active as cadres, provocateurs, escape helpers and violent criminals and have been sent to prison.  ALl of this runs counter to the the attempt to paint extreme right-wing women;s groups as politically harmless.) 

German authorities botched the investigation into the NSU terror acts for over a decade. Hopefully they won't botch the trial of Beate Zschäpe.

The Myth of Nazi Gun Control

Tune into Fox News any time day or night and you will find frequent comparisons of President Obama to Adolf Hitler.  For just like Hitler, Obama wants to disarm the American people so that he can impose a Socialist/Fascist dictatorship.  The "Gun Control = Holocaust" meme is so pervasive that it is even invoked by Republican members of Congress. The premise is that Hitler was able to consolidate his power through implementing a gun registry, and then murder six million Jews by confiscating their weapons. It is an article of faith among American gun fetishists that "the first thing Hitler did was round up all the guns."

The myth of Nazi gun control was exploded already in 2004 by Bernard E. Harcourt in his article On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (pdf warning) published in the Journal of the University of Chicago Law School.  It turns out, as Harcourt documents, that the Nazis relaxed many of the gun ownership restrictions that were put in place during the Weimar Republic (as required under the Versailles Treaty). And one could argue that the Nazi Party might not have successfully seized power if gun laws had been strictly enforced during the Weimar Republic, since Hitler had few problems procuring illegal weapons for his paramilitary troops such as the SA. 

It is true that after the Novemberpogrom of 1938 the Nazi regime expressly forbade Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and other "undesirables" from owning any weapons (Waffengesetz von 1938), but it is not clear at all that this had any significant effect on the persecution of Jews. And it is patently absurd to point to this as the cause of the Holocaust.  The Jews that were detained and then deported after 1938 tended to be older and less-well off; most Jews with any resources left Germany much earlier.  The deportation took place with the open or tacit approval and complicity of the vast majority of Germans; any act of armed resistance would have been completely futile.   In any case, most of the Jews who perished in in the Nazi death camps were non-Germans and not subject to the Waffengesetz. 

But don't expect any rational discussion of history to change the Gun Control = Holocaust hysteria.  There is a segment of white males in America who fantasize about using their AR-15 military assault rifles to mow down Obama's gay Muslim storm-troopers who will be coming to a neighborhood near you to take your guns. 

Down and Out in Kronberg and Neukölln

DIe Zeit has two interesting articles that illustrate the growing divide between the affluent and the poor in Europe's wealthiest economy.  Zeit reporter Henning Sußebach and a female companion went underground for a week as a homeless couple in need of shelter (she is pregnant) and food in two very different places.  What they experience is eye-opening, but not entirely unexpected.  The experiments take place a year apart during the Advent season- the season of giving.

In December 2011 Henning and Viola turn up as a homeless couple in need of assistance in Kronberg, a wealthy enclave of bankers, hedge fund managers and tax attorneys just outside of Frankfurt (a suburb comparable to Greenwich, Connecticut (Maria und Josef im Ghetto des Geldes). They walk in the rain from one luxury hotel to another looking for a place to sleep - but there is no room at the inn.  For the most part, the hotel staff is horrified at their presence, afraid the couple's raggedy appearance would disturb the well-heeled guests. Mostly, the couple is invisible in this affluent community - the Mercedes and the SUVs whizz by them with hardly anyone taking notice.  Occasionally a child will blurt out what the parents are surely thinking: "Mama! Da sind wieder die faulen Feiglinge." ("there they are again, the lazy cowards.")  For in the winner-take-all society, the losers have only themselves to blame for their dire predicament. 

The couple does get some help - from a Turkish gardener speaking broken German, from a low-level hotel employee, from a maid in the one of the bankers' mansions. The local Lutheran minister, working on his Christmas sermon, turns them away, but does give them a bag of food and 20 euros.

Finally, the couple crashes a charity event at one the posh hotels:

Es gibt zahllose Charity-Zirkel in Kronberg, aufwendig inszeniert und dokumentiert. Im Internet finden sich Bilder von Vorstandschefs in karger Krankenhauskulisse und Managern mit dunkelhäutigen Babys auf dem Arm. Die Konkurrenz scheint so groß zu sein, dass man schon Mehrfachbetroffenen helfen muss, um überhaupt aufzufallen. Nur Kinder in Bangladesch reichen nicht, sie müssen auch noch blind sein. Indirekte Hilfe wird bevorzugt – also verbunden mit Festlichkeit und Spenden nach möglichst weit weg. Bangladesch, Sri Lanka, Peru.

(There are countless charity organizations in Kronberg, elaborately staged and documented.  In the Internet you find pictures of board members in primitive hospitals and managers holding dark-skinned babies. The competition is apparently so great that you need to find those who are doubly disadvantaged to help if you want to get noticed.  It's not enough to help children in Bangladesh - they need to be blind as well.  Indirect help is much preferred - combined with festivities and donations for those as far as away as possible: Bangladesch, Sri Lanka, Peru. ) 

One year later, in December 2012, Henning Sußebach and a female reporter decide to try out their homeless experiment in one of the worst slums of Berlin - Neukölln (Maria und Josef in Neukölln ).  Neukölln is a neighborhood of mostly immigrants and is considered a high-crime area.  Here the couple has no difficulty finding a place to sleep or a hot shower.  People give them food, money, dry socks.  They are not invisible, for the residents identify them as their own.

In Neukölln kann niemand dem anderen ausweichen. Bleibt man einfach mal sitzen im Rein und Raus der Teestuben, wird klar, wie viel Verbindlichkeit sich im scheinbar unverbindlichen Trubel versteckt: Viele Gäste werden mit Handschlag über die Theke hinweg begrüßt, der Chef erkundigt sich, wie es den Kindern geht, Schüler brüten über ihren Hausaufgaben – und die Frage »Was geht, Alter?« ist mehr als Ghettokid-Folklore. Uns helfen vor allem jene, die »parterre geblieben« sind, wie die Berliner sagen, auch charakterlich nicht abgehoben.

(In Neukölln there is no way of avoiding each other. Just try sitting in the hustle and bustle of a tea room and it is clear how many human connections there are in the apparent confusion. Many patrons are greeted with a handshake across the counter, the boss asks how the kids are, the children struggling with their homework - and just asking the question "How are things going, old man?" is more than just a ghetto-kid folk tale. It is those at the "bottom of the stairs", as the Berliners say, who are the most eager to help us.) 

So what was the point of this "experiment", and what was learned?  It is the old story of 'The Rich Young Man / der reiche Jüngling from the Bible  (Luk. 18, 18-23; Mark. 10, 17-22; Matth. 19, 16-22):

"Als Jesus auf die Straße hinausgetreten war, kam ein vornehmer Jüngling herzu, kniete vor ihm nieder und fragte ihn: “Guter Meister! was soll ich Gutes tun, damit ich das ewige Leben erlange?” Jesus entgegnete ihm: “Was nennst du mich gut? (Und) was fragst du mich über das Gute? Niemand ist gut als nur einer, Gott. Willst du aber  zum Leben eingehen, so halte die Gebote.” Er sprach zu ihm: “Welche?” Jesus antwortete: “Die Gebote kennst du: Du sollst nicht töten, nicht ehebrechen, nicht stehlen, kein falsches Zeugnis geben, nicht betrügen. Ehre deinen Vater und deine Mutter und liebe deinen Nächsten wie dich selbst.” Der Jüngling antwortete ihm: “Meister, das alles habe ich von Jugend auf beobachtet; was fehlt mir noch?” Als Jesus dieses hörte, blickte er ihn liebreich an und sprach: “Eins fehlt dir noch: Willst du vollkommen sein, so geh hin, verkaufe alles, was du hast, und gib es den Armen, und du wirst einen Schatz im Himmel haben; dann komm und folge mir nach.” Als der Jüngling das hörte, ward er betrübt und ging traurig hinweg; denn er besaß viele Güter."

Social inequality reinforced by Germany's education system

In a knowledge-centered economy, education provides the ticket to achieving or retaining a middle-class economic status.  The German education tracks students on a permanent path beginning in the seventh grade.  That is when schools decide who will have the chance to later enter the gymnasium and they go on to the university.  Unfortunately, the tracking system penalizes immigrants and those from lower socio-economic backgrounds.  It is an unjust system:

Jahr um Jahr, Studie um Studie haben die Fachleute bemängelt, Pädagogen ließen sich in ihrem Urteil zu sehr von der sozialen Herkunft der Kinder leiten. Nun zeigt sich: es hat sich nichts gebessert. Der Nachwuchs aus bildungsbürgerlichem Hause hat eine fast dreieinhalb Mal so hohe Chance, fürs Gymnasium vorgeschlagen zu werden, als Kevin oder Murat aus dem Arbeiter- oder Hartz-IV-Haushalt. Bei gleicher Leistung wohlgemerkt.

(Year after year in study after study the experts have found fault with the fact that teachers have been overly influenced by the social background of the children.  Recent studies show that things have not improved.  Children from upper middle class homes have a 3 and a half better chance of being recommended for the Gymnasium than a Kevin or Murat from a working class or welfare household.  Even given similar levels of achievement.)

Could there possibly be a correlation between economic discrimination in schools and this report on Germany's shrinking middle class? 

Die Mittelschicht in Deutschland schrumpft. Seit 1997 ist ihr Anteil an der Gesamtbevölkerung um 5,5 Millionen Menschen oder von 65 auf 58 Prozent zurückgegangen. Besonders ausgeprägt ist dieser Rückgang in der unteren Hälfte der Einkommensmittelschichten, deren Anteil sogar um 15 Prozent geringer ist. Umgekehrt ist der Anteil der Menschen in den unteren und untersten Einkommensschichten um knapp vier Millionen Personen gewachsen. Gleichzeitig macht sich in den Mittelschichten inzwischen jeder Vierte latente Sorgen, seinen heutigen Status zu verlieren. Das sind deutlich mehr Deutsche als noch vor 10 Jahren. Der Grund für die Entwicklung: Immer weniger Menschen gelingt der Aufstieg aus den unteren Einkommen in die Mittelschicht. Und selbst eine gute Ausbildung ist heute kein Garant mehr für ein Leben in gesichertem Wohlstand.

(The middle class in Germany is shrinking. Since 1997 its percentage of the total population has decreased by 5.5 million people, or from 65% to 58%.  This development is especially pronounced among the the bottom half of the middle class income groups, where the proportion is even 15% lower.  On the other hand the percentage of people in the lower and bottom income levels has increased by 4 million people. At the same time, within the middle class, one in four expresses concern of losing his social status. That represents considerably more Germans than ten years ago.  The reason for this development is that fewer and fewer people are able to climb from the lower income levels into the middle class. And even a good educations is today no longer a guarantee for a more secure prosperity.)

Of course, in the US we frown on such rigid "tracking" of students and pretend we have a pure meritocracy: the smartest kids can always go on the university, no matter how much money their parents earn.  The fact is, kids from poorer school districts get an inferior education.  And the result is the same as in Germany: a shrinking middle class.

 

Happy Glock-Day, America!

While families in Colorado mourn yet another senseless mass killing, the finance department at Glock Ges.m.b.H. in Deutsch-Wagram is popping champagne corks.  These are halcyon days for Austria's Deadliest Import.  The Glock has cemented its position as the weapon of choice for mass killers - and not just in America: 

Norwegian far-Right extremist Anders Behring Breivik used a Glock 17 to kill most of the 67 people he shot dead during his massacre on the island of Utoya a year ago this Sunday.

Sweden's Peter Mangs, the man accused of being behind to more than a dozen shootings of immigrants in the city of Malmo, owned a Glock 19.

Germany's Robert Steinhäuser, who killed 17 people in the 2001 Erfurt massacre, used a Glock 17.

But only in America does this deadly mayhem lead to a spike in the sales of Glock pistols.  For the United States is the only place where any lunatic can walk into a gun store and purchase a Glock. And the more Americans are gunned downed by Glock owners, the more people want to own Glocks. 

It is no mystery why Glocks are coveted by mass kilers.  Glocks are excellent killing machines which can easily be optimized with enhanced magazine clips:

According to Paul Barrat, the author of Glock: The Rise of America's Gun, the magazine is the main attraction.

"This magazine is so large, it actually sticks out the bottom of the handle of the gun, of the grip," he told an American radio station earlier this year.

"And you can fire it very quickly, and you can get off that large number of rounds before you have to reload." The weapon is now used by two-thirds of US police departments and has featured in countless films.

Thanks to the cowardice of politicians and the power of the NRA, people can now take their Glocks practically everywhere in the US: churches, taverns, state houses,  - even airport lobbies.

Americans, there is an excellent chance that there iwill be a Glock in your future - or at least the bullet from one. 

Germany a Nightmare for the National Rifle Association

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is the premier organization in the United States that promotes gun ownership.  No doubt the NRA would dearly like to set up a branch in Germany, for there is entirely too little shooting and killing taking place in the Federal Republic.  Last year German police fired off 85 bullets in total - in a nation of 85 million people: 

85 Patronen verfeuerten Polizeibeamte in Deutschland im Jahr 2011 bundesweit auf der Jagd nach Verbrechern, 49 davon waren Warnschüsse. 36-mal gaben die Polizisten gezielte Schüsse ab. Dabei wurden 15 Personen verletzt und sechs getötet, wie aus einer Statistik der Deutschen Hochschule der Polizei im westfälischen Münster hervorgeht.

(Police officers in Germany fired 85 bullets in 2011 in the entire country while pursuing crminals; 49 of these were warning shots.  The police fired targeted shots at individuals 36 times, during which 15 people were wounded and six killed, according to statistics provided by the Police College in Muenster)

Meanwhile the New York City police fired slightly fewer bullets - 84 bullets, to be exact - at one man, while their colleagues in Los Angeles fired 90 times at an unarmed teenager.  Still, there is far too little bloody mayhem in the United States to satisfy the NRA; the organizaiton is pushing to allow concealed weapons in schools, churches, hospitals, and even courtrooms. 

Read Battleground America: One Nation Under the Gun. 

Günter Grass and Pent-Up Anti-Semitism

First, Günter Grass is not anti-Semitic.  He published a bad poem but it is reprehensible that pundits such as Henryk Broder and Marcel Reich-Ranicki bludgeon Grass with the anti-Semitism cudgel.  Second, it is wrong that Israel deny Günter Grass entry into the country, just as it was wrong for the US to deny entry to Oxford lecturer Tariq Ramadan.  Democracies do not muffle voices of dissent or criticism.

That said, the poem, and the reaction to the poem by the established media, has opened a Pandora's Box of populist anti-Semitism.  The avalanche of blog posts and comments aren't just critical observations or commentary of Israel's settlements in the West Bank or civil rights of Palestinians, but reflect a hatred of the Jewish state which points to something much more disturbing. This is all very reminiscent of the reception to Thilo Sarrazin's racist book Deutschland schafft sich ab (2010), which was condemned by the establishment but was enthusiastically embraced by the masses.

The New York Times takes note of the populist support for Grass:

Mr. Grass’s critics hail mostly from the cultural and political elite, while his support appears to be far more broadly based — even if Mr. Grass is not himself seen as the best spokesman for that view, given his own Nazi past

Sharp criticism of Israel, particularly from the left, has long been a tradition among European intellectuals, and Mr. Grass’s poem caused little stir on the Continent outside of Germany. But political and scholarly elites here have more often resisted that trend, tending to see basic support for Israel as a German responsibility, if not a necessity, after the Holocaust.

But the public response to the furor over Mr. Grass’s poem suggests that that attitude is breaking down as World War II recedes into history. “In the populism you see surfacing on a large scale, the public is all behind Grass,” said Georg Diez, an author and journalist at the magazine Der Spiegel who has written critically of the poem.

Ze’ev Avrahami, an Israeli journalist and restaurateur in Berlin who has written about the Grass controversy for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, said that he had left Israel because he could not support his country’s policies in the West Bank and Gaza. But he said that he and Israeli workers at his restaurant, Sababa, in the chic Prenzlauer Berg neighborhood, have found the tone of the discussions disquieting.

“They are not allowed to say anything about Jewish people, and they will never say anything about Jewish people, but to say everything about Israel is O.K.,” Mr. Avrahami said. “It’s absolutely the new anti-Semitism for us.”

“Israel has earned criticism,” he said, “but not on this level.”

Grass has opened the floodgate with his poem.  A radio commentator, Ken Jebsen, had a long hate-filled diatribe on his program as he accused Israel of seeking a "Final Solution" to the Palestanian issue.  Not to be outdone, the neo-Nazi NPD has rushed to profit from the controversy surrounding (Social Democrat) Günter Grass just as it did with the (Social Democrat) Thilo Sarrazin.  It can now openly attack the Jewish state:

  Doch das, was Millionen Deutsche schon seit Jahren meinen, daß Israel mehr und mehr zur Gefahr wird und daß uns Deutschen keine ewige Zwangssolidarität mit dem 1948 gegründeten Aggressionsstaat verbindet, werden jetzt immer mehr Menschen auch offen kundtun.

(What millions of Germans always believed - namely that Israel is dangerous and Germany shouldn't have a permanent forced solidarity with the "aggression-state" founded in 1948 - is now being openly expressed by more and more people.)

German Court Upholds Racial Profiling

A court in Koblenz has taken a page from the state of Arizona and has ruled in favor of identy checks based on skin color (thanks to reader Zyme for the reference): 

A Koblenz court knocked down the complaint of a black German man who got into an argument with two federal police officers who demanded his papers while travelling on a train.

He refused to show the officers his identity papers, and was taken off the train to a police station where his rucksack was searched and his driving license eventually found, the court said in a statement.

The officers then accused him of abusing them, and took him to court. During the hearing one of the officers said that when deciding which travellers to check, he sought out those who seemed to him to be foreigners and said one of his criteria was skin colour.

This prompted the man concerned to sue, saying their conduct was illegal. But the judges at the Koblenz administrative court in Rhineland Palatinate ruled on Tuesday that the officers had not acted illegally.

The ruling has for the most part received little mention in the German press, howeve, the Tageszeitung warned of the consequences if it is allowed to stand: 

If you allow checks without suspicion in order to fight illegal migration, then you also automatically create a discriminatory situation. This discrimination is particularly directed at those who have legal residency here or have even long been German citizens. With each check, they will be reminded once again that they don't actually belong here and, at the very least, have an appearance that leads police to imagine they are illegal immigrants. … Here, the seeds of distrust and racism are permanently sown. Such laws only serve to hinder integration and should be eliminated.

The court decision in Koblenz is clearly unconstitutional, since it violates Article 3 of German Basic Law (Grundgesetz):

(1) All persons shall be equal before the law.

(2) Men and women shall have equal rights. The state shall promote the actual implementation of equal rights for women and men and take steps to eliminate disadvantages that now exist.

(3) No person shall be favoured or disfavoured because of sex, parentage, race, language, homeland and origin, faith, or religious or political opinions. No person shall be disfavoured because of disability.

The ruling (like the Arizona law) will hopefully be struck down on appeal.

Martin van Creveld and Academic Freedom in Germany

Evidently the Rector of the University of Trier didn't know what he was in for when he invited the Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld as a "visiting scholar".  In his very first lecture he managed to stir up a firestorm of controversy: 

Für drei Monate hätte der israelische Kriegshistoriker Martin van Creveld eigentlich an der Universität Trier forschen und lehren sollen, am interdisziplinären Historisch-Kulturwissenschaftlichen Forschungszentrum (HKFZ). Nun hat die Hochschule den 65-jährigen Gastwissenschaftler vorzeitig entlassen - auf Druck von Studenten.

Nachdem Details über seinen Antrittsvortrag zum Thema "Männer, Frauen, Kriegsspiele und Kultur" bekannt wurden, formierte sich Widerstand gegen van Creveld. In dem Vortrag hatte er unter anderem die These vertreten, dass "viele Frauen es genießen, wie Männer sich gegenseitig abschlachten". Und weiter: "Ohne Frauen, die sich verführen lassen, hätte es weder Kriege noch Kriegsspiele gegeben."

("Actually the military historian Martin van Creveld was supposed to spend three months conducting research and lecturing at the University's Interdisciplinary Research Center for History and Culture.  But now the university has dismissed the scholar - under pressure from the students.

After details surface about his introductory lecture on the topic of "Men, Women, War Games and Culture" Creveld came under increased criticism.  In his lecture Creveld put forward the thesis that "many women liked it when men slaughtered each other."  And also:"Without women, who let themselves be seduced, there would be no wars or war games.")

Now I'm not a fan of van Creveld, mostly because he often appears in the neo-Fascist weekly Junge Freiheit.  But I support unconditional academic freedom: the students should peacefully protest and debate van Creveld - but not silence him.  And the university is also at fault here, for how could they not know that Martin van Creveld is the "Thilo Sarrazin of Gender Studies."  Van Creveld knows a great deal about war and military history, but when it comes to women he uses Sarrazin-style pseudo-scientific arguments to make his points.

Van Creveld's views on women were outlined in his 2003 book Das bevorzugte Geschlecht  ("The Privileged Sex")  wherein he argues that men have to do all the hard and dirty work - such as wage war - while women have it relatively easy:

"In fast jeder Hinsicht sind Frauen seit eh und je das privilegierte Geschlecht. Als Kinder werden sie sanfter angefaßt und mehr behütet. Als Studentinnen wird ihnen schon seit langem nachgesehen, dass sie sich von Fächern fernhalten, die als die schwierigsten gelten. Als Erwachsene sind sie unter weniger Konkurrenz- und Leidensdruck. Was ihren Lebensunterhalt betrifft, sind sie oft in der beneidenswerten Lage, konsumieren zu können ohne produzieren zu müssen. Als Kriminelle und Prozessführende werden sie vom Gesetz und von den Gerichten wesentlich nachsichtiger behandelt. Als Staatsbürgerinnen sind sie nicht nur von der Pflicht befreit, an den schrecklichsten aller menschlichen Aktivitäten, d.h. dem Krieg, teilzunehmen, sondern werden auch besser vor ihm geschützt. Von Männern auf den Schultern getragen - manchmal, wenn es darum geht, Naturkatastrophen und ähnlichem zu entkommen, im wörtlichen Sinne - haben Frauen stets den Löwenanteil der Annehmlichkeiten genossen, die eine Gesellschaft, egal wann und wo, zu bieten hatte. Frauen, deren Leben als wertvoller gilt als das von Männern, sind seltener Opfer von Gewaltverbrechen"

("Women have always been the privileged sex in every sense. As children they are treated more gently and protected more.  As students they are permitted to stay away from subjects that are perceived as the most difficult.  As adults they are not under the same pressure to compete and experience less stress. And with respect to support they are often lucky enough to consume without having to produce. As criminals they are treated by the courts with more compassion. As citizens they are relieved from having to perform the most terrible duty of all: waging war.  And are protected from the ravages of war. Men literally carry them on their shoulders to escape from natural catastrophes,  Women are always the beneficiaries of all the best that society offers. Women, whose lives are seen as more valuable than men's, are less frequently the victims of violent crimes.")

 And when it comes to violent crimes, the female students at the University of Trier must have been surprised to learn that Martin van Creveld doesn't see rape as such a bad thing; in fact, for sexually experienced women it has no lasting impact.  No wonder the editors of Junge Freiheit champion van Creveld. 

State-Sponsored Multiculturalism in Germany

"Multiculturalism has utterfly failed in Germany," said German chancellor Angela Merkel last year in a speech, echoing the sentiments of Thilo Sarrazin and many pundits.  For Sarrazin and his fans, the failure of multiculturalism is the fault of (genetically inferior) Muslim immigrants who stubbornly refuse to adopt German values.  But Kenan Malik, in an Op/Ed piece in the New York Times, sees it quite differently.  The problem has always been that German policy has been a barrier to  assimilation of the Muslim minority:

A similar process has taken place in Germany. Postwar immigrants, primarily from Turkey, came not as potential citizens, but as “gastarbeiter,” or guest workers, who were expected to eventually return to their native countries. Over time, immigrants became transformed from a temporary necessity to a permanent presence, partly because Germany continued relying on their labor, and partly because they — and especially their children — came to see Germany as home.

The German state, however, continued to view them as outsiders and to refuse them citizenship. Unlike the practices in Britain, France or the United States, German citizenship is based on blood, not soil: it is granted automatically only to children born of German parents. Germany has nearly four million people of Turkish origin today, many of them born there, but fewer than 25 percent have managed to become citizens. Instead, multiculturalism became the German answer to the “Turkish problem.”

Viewed as second-class residents in Germany, people with Turkish backgrounds were forced into "parallel societies":

In place of citizenship and a genuine status in society, the state “allowed” immigrants to keep their own culture, language and lifestyles. One consequence was the creation of parallel communities. Without any incentive to participate in the national community, many Turks became dangerously inward-looking. Today, almost a third of Turkish adults in Germany regularly attend mosque, a higher rate than elsewhere in Western Europe and higher than in many parts of Turkey. The increasing isolation of second-generation German Turks has made some more open to radical Islamism. The uncovering last year of German jihadis fighting in Afghanistan should therefore have come as no surprise.

The Sarrazins, Broders and Wilders in Europe always complain that Muslims have no relationship with the "Judeo-Christian roots" of Western culture.  I can only recommend that they open their Bibles to Galatians 6:7: "For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."