If there is no man at hand...

... a suppressed Muslim woman will do the job just as well:

This hasn't anything to do with Islam, really:

A Calgary mother won’t spend a day in jail for killing her teenage daughter with a head scarf — a decision that has prompted outrage.

A national victims’ group, based in Toronto, is stunned by the suspended sentence given to Aset Magomadova by Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Sal LoVecchio on Thursday.

“I really strongly disagree. It sends a massively huge message to the rest of the country and the world that her daughter’s life was valueless,” said Joe Wamback, co-founder and chairman of the Canadian Crime Victims Foundation. Dear Mr. Wamback, no doubt you are meaning well, but you are talking about a Muslim family. To her, her daughter's life WAS valueless. You have ... HOW many Muslims in Canada? (It doesn't really matter how many exactly. If something like that happens, there are too many already.) Get an education!

“Even though this girl may have been a handful and trouble, that’s not the issue. Good to know! We are relieved, otherwise we'd thought that killing her is just the appropriate measure to discipline an unruly teenager. The issue is human life. Oh yes? Sentencing is not just about the criminal, but has to speak for the victim and to denunciation.” Gosh, how frightfully non-politically correct. No wonder nobody gave a damn.

In October, LoVecchio acquitted Magomadova, 40, of second-degree murder and found her guilty of manslaughter in the death of Aminat, 14. He placed her on probation for three years with several conditions, including taking counselling for grief, depression and anger management. And a trip to the Caribbean and an unlimited supply of McDonalds coupons for life.

The judge rejected an argument by Crown prosecutors Mac Vomberg and Sarah Bhola for a 12-year prison term, instead accepting the position of defence lawyer Alain Hepner, saying a suspended sentence can still meet the demands of sharia justice.

“At first blush (a suspended sentence) may sound like a get-out-of-jail-free card. It is not,” said LoVecchio. What else is it then?

“The court has said the act in question does not merit a period of incarceration. What the court has done is reserved or, to use the word of the statute, suspended judgment on that point for a period of time on conditions. If the conditions are satisfied, then the individual will not be sentenced. If they are breached, the individual will be brought back to the court to be dealt with further.” This is so debauched, so debased and rotten to the core, that it can only come from a judge in a liberal Western country.

Magomadova was charged after the deadly incident at their home the morning of Feb. 26, 2007, after Aminat refused to go to court to be sentenced for assaulting a female teacher at her school.

The devout Muslim mother claimed Aminat came at her with a knife in her sewing room, where she prayed several times a day. She said she reacted by wrapping the scarf around her daughter’s neck and twice told the girl to put the knife down before the teen lost consciousness.

A knife was found in the room, but the daughter’s fingerprints were not on it. But Muslims don't lie. Didn't you know that their faith forbids lying? It's peace, too. Oh yes, and mercy!

LoVecchio, who rejected a defence of self-defence, deemed the woman did not intend to kill the teen, even though medical examiner Dr. Sam Andrews testified that death as a result of such an act would have taken at least 2 1/2 minutes.

Jennifer Koshan, an associate professor at the University of Calgary’s faculty of law who researches family violence, said the vast majority of fatal family violence cases involve husbands killing their wives. I guess this totally useless and a-topical information is supposed let the murder of the girl somehow appear less gruesome. At least it wasn't a man who choked her.

“It’s relatively unusual to see a mother killing a child, especially an older child,” [sic!] said Koshan. “So it’s rare for the court to be faced with this situation. Maybe that influenced the judge in his decision.” Right! So the court said: "We have never dealt with a mother strangling her teenage daughter cruelly to death over a time of 2 1/2 minutes, so let's not deal with it at all!" What a magically wise solution.

Marilyn Millions, one of Magomadova’s sponsors with St. James Anglican Church, said outside court she was relieved “at the compassion and mercy that has been shown” by the court. Sorry, I'm not commenting on that. Words fail me.

“There were lots of tears and emotion,” she said. “If you’ve lived through it and you’ve gotten to know these people, it’s all in the context. It’s a lot different than reading a little bit about it. It’s a very different situation.” WHAT is a very different situation? Having to deal with a murderous Muslim walrus?

Millions also said it was the wish of the family that “people would know mental-health services for young people and help for their families will be improved, and changes made to the system, so that others who have to go through similar situations do not fall through the cracks.” So that woman killed her daughter because she fell though some "cracks"? It wasn't really her fault?

Hepner said his client was crying after she learned she’d be free to go home and agreed it was an appropriate sentence. You bet!

“The judge considered all the factors and it was a very lengthy decision,” said Hepner, who had sought either a conditional jail sentence to be served in the community or the suspended sentence. “He considered the background, psychological and psychiatric background. What else can a judge do in arriving at a proper decision?” Maybe use some common sense and simple human decency?

LoVecchio said he wrestled with the dynamics of the family in reaching his conclusions. The "dynamics" of that family are that of a Muslim family in the West.

He noted that the woman came to Canada for a better life for herself and her children from Chechnya, where her husband had been killed by Russian invaders and she had part of her foot blown off. And that excuses killing her child, no doubt. I don't want to appear unkind, but I'm afraid the Russians blew the wrong body part off.

“This was a family in crisis with events spiralling out of control,” he said, alluding to the friction between Aset and Aminat leading up to the deadly confrontation that morning. Well, whatever.

“It cannot be reduced to simply a case of mom choosing to kill her daughter as a form of discipline because she misbehaved. Quite simply, the events of that morning cannot be seen as a single isolated event.” Blah blah blah yabber yabber yack yack ...

And nobody even remembered that all this was supposed to be, too, about speaking for the victim and denunciation.

And, you know, that is not really about Islam, that's how Islam is EXPLOITED by people like that infanticidal hippopotamus.

But whatever. I, for one, will think twice in the future if Islam critics (myself included) are waxing lyrically about the victims of Islam who long so much to be free, weren't it for that evil, testosterone-laden culture. Not that it is all THAT new, mind you. A Google search Muslim mother kills daughter returns the following hits on page one:

Gary Robinson's Rants: Mother kills raped daughter to restore 'honor'
Mother kills raped daughter to restore 'honor'. I could hardly believe this story: Raped by her brothers and impregnated, Rofayda Qaoud refused to commit ...

Daughter raped by brothers, murdered by mother
18 Nov 2003 ... 'Thousands of women have been killed in the name of honor' ... Related stories: Muslim slays daughter in 'honor killing' ...

CANADA: MUSLIM mother attempts to 'honor kill' her own daughter ...
14 Jun 2010 ... A Montreal Muslim mother from Afghanistan is facing charges that she tried to kill her teenaged daughter, in what police suspect could be an ...

UK: Muslim mother hires hit man to kill Westernized daughter ...
4 Sep 2009 ... UK: Muslim mother hires hit man to kill Westernized daughter. After my adventures yesterday in Florida, it seems as if the only people who ...

The Google bot, befuddled, asked me at the bottom of the page: Did you mean to search for: Muslim father kills daughter

No, Google. I most definitely do NOT mean to search for that. Methinks that even a search engine can become a victim of the "It’s a very different situation” phenomenon.

P.S. Do you have any idea, Americans, what triggers off one of my recurrent "I-dislike-America"-bouts (it is applicable to the entire North American continent, by the way)? If your media calls somebody like that "a [insert location] mother". "Mom" is worse.

Had tip: Beak!

I still hope this is a hoax!

This is so outgrossing that it defies belief. The report below is from the British rag "Sun". At least they are non-politically correct enough to call the sort of encounter described a "bizarre relationship". It's not quite as good as "swinish self-indulgence", but we can be grateful for small mercies. In the American media they'd probably call it "heartwarming" and "romance":

A 72-YEAR-OLD granny* is having an incestuous affair* with her own GRANDSON — and the pair are set to have a BABY*, according to reports.

Grey-haired Pearl Carter has allegedly began a bizarre relationship with her 26-year-old grandchild Phil Bailey.

Pearl, from Indiana, is now using her pension to pay $54,000 (£35,000) to a surrogate mother so they can have a child, say reports in New Idea magazine in New Zealand. That's wonderful! I wonder what has been her profession.

Pearl said: "I'm not interested in anyone else's opinion. Well, that's obvious. I am in love with Phil and he's in love with me. Soon I'll be holding my son or daughter in my arms* and Phil will be the proud dad*."

[...]

Phil is the son of Pearl's daughter Lynette Bailey — who the pensioner* put up for adoption when she was just 18, the magazine reported.

When Lynette died, Phil tracked down his long lost gran* — 46 years his senior — and they started their strange relationship*.

Pearl told New Idea: "From the first moment that I saw him, I knew we would never have a grandmother-grandson relationship. Gack! For the first time in years I felt sexually alive." And, of course, that's what matters.

The pair spent their first week together shopping, bowling and eating out. SO classy! And she remained continent for an entire week. Fancy that!

Pearl said: "I called Phil into my bedroom, sat him on the bed, and then I leant over and kissed him. Of course, the old bag started it.

"I expected rejection but instead he kissed me back." Maybe he has a penchant for "making love" to oversized leather bags.

Phil told the magazine he had the same feelings towards Pearl. What a poor, lost soul!

He revealed: "I wanted to kiss her there and then. My feelings were overwhelming. Vomit!

"I love Pearl with all my heart. I've always been a pervert and attracted to saggy old leather bags older women and I think Pearl is gorgeous*. Yuck! Now I'm going to be a dad* and I can't wait.

"Yes, we get laughed at and bullied when we go out and kiss in public Which proves that at least some people have not yet lost all their standards! but we don't care. Obviously not. You can't help who you fall for.*" That is what every sex offender says.

The pair have asked 30-year-old Roxanne Campbell to carry their child*.

Pearl said: "I am finally going to be a mum* and not forced to give up my child. How cute! Phil's going to be a great dad*. I never in a million years thought at 72 I'd be 'pregnant' and in love with* my grandson. Puke!

"I make no apologies and I believe God's given me a second chance." Please God, give me the strength NOT to comment on this. Please God!

Pearl says the relationship is not wrong after a friend told her about Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA) syndrome This sort of science will excuse anything, from sodomy to mass murder!, which occurs when close relatives meet as adults and find they are attracted to each other*.

She said: "I could now understand my feelings and realise they weren't wrong." Yeah, right!

Pearl was 18 when she fell pregnant with daughter Lynette. She was living with her Catholic parents Hey, was the pope's fault! And did he ever apologise for it? in Indiana and they insisted she give the baby away. They probably knew why.

They organised a private adoption and Pearl never saw her baby girl* again.

[blah yabber yack]

*Lower middleclass cute-ism alarm

SHOULD this been true, and I still hope it isn't, it ought to remove the last doubt that a society that lets women run loose is bound to perish. What I find encouraging, though, is the vast majority of scathing remarks in the comment sections, interspersed with a few "blah consenting adults Yabber Yack" ones.

Tough luck he isn't a puppy!

By now, everybody will have heard of the 7-year-old adopted boy who was placed on a flight back to Moscow by this "Tennessee mom". (Don't get me started now on disgusting American euphemisms!)

The boy may well have been a violent nutcase and she can blame the adoption agency and the Russian officials for dishonesty as much as she wants. They probably were. I am not even insisting that it was her duty to undergo therapy and all the excruciating processes other, responsible, adoptive parents choose to undergo. (Well, it WAS her duty, but I am not insisting on it for argument's sake.) However, nothing changes the fact that she put a helpless, troubled little boy alone on a 10-hour- flight and arranged for a stranger she found via the Internet, and who could have very well have been a fiend , to pick him up at the other end to drop him off like an broken bit of merchandise. So the child was too much fuss for her. Alright, but ist seems that even getting rid of him in a halfway decent manner was too much fuss for her.

I did quite an extensive Internet search and I found countless sheer and undiluted expressions of disgust at the "adoptive mother's" behaviour, even more expressing stern disapproval but granted her "good intentions" in the first place and that they could relate to her because they experienced similar problems with their own adopted child and -- worst -- those "I don't think we can judge unless we have gone through the same blah blah blah ..." relativists. Right! I guess you can't judge a mass murderer or a paederast until you've killed a few and raped at least one child. Gosh, DO I hate "ordinary people".

Neighbours in the rural town of 20,000 said Hansen [the adoptive mother] was a loving mother who found she could not cope with a violent child.

Linda Austin said: 'We knew there were problems but she tried her best. I think she is getting the raw end of the deal.'

Another neighbour added: 'Torry desperately wanted a child of her own, but she just found this boy uncontrollable.'

I wonder what they'd said had the skank abandoned a puppy. We've yet to see a snappy slogan like "A child is for life, not just Christmas".

However, what I did NOT see in the course of my Internet search, was one single challenge of the fact that here we have a case of a "single mom" (Did I say that you oughtn't to get me started on disgusting American euphemisms?) as an "adoptive parent". Incidentally, previous adoption failures have increased Russian officials' wariness of adoptions to the U.S. In 2006, Peggy Sue Hilt of Manassas, Virginia, was sentenced to 25 years in prison after being convicted of fatally beating a 2-year-old girl adopted from Siberia and 2008, Kimberly Emelyantsev of Tooele, Utah, was sentenced to 15 years after pleading guilty to killing a Russian infant in her care.

Does anybody see a pattern there?

Or here?

A Florida woman left her adopted Guatemalan kindergartener in the airport immediately after bringing him to the United States (he remained in foster care until she sought, and regained, custody of him 16 months later).

I guess we can at least be grateful that they didn't call her a "Florida mom".

What can one expect from a woman with a crappy name like "Torry Ann"? (I sometimes think that every single cliché is true.) What from an "adoptive grandmother" who makes "cute" statements like the one saying that her daughter "only wanted to have a family". And nobody laughs that old bag out of the door and tells her, as her daughter isn't married, that, no, she can't.

Is there really a scenario all that easily imaginable, where a married couple would do that to a child? That they would have rejected professional help? That they would have come forward with simpering bullshit like they "only wanted to have a family"? As if that would explain, let alone excuse, anything.

Women simply don't have the moral fibre, strength, reliability, integrity, maturity and devotion to be trusted with the sole care for a child. It's bad enough what they are doing to their birth children, so it's sheer and utter madness to indulge their whim "to have a family" and let them adopt. If they are unable to form a stable relationship with a man, how can they be trusted to form one with a child?

America, you have a lot of problems. You have a radical leftwinger in the White House, massive economic issues and God knows what consequences your immigration policy will have. But the worst you are doing to yourself is feminism. Why? Because it goes straight at the heart of any intact society -- the family.

What happened to the little boy is bad enough, but what is worse is the fact that nobody seems to notice that adoption rights for unmarried mothers stink.

Surprised, Anybody?

The pastoral head of the umbrella organisation of Germany's Protestant churches has admitted drunk-driving after having passed a red light and being caught with a blood alcohol level three times over the legal limit. This is not the first time the church leader has made headlines. Criticising Catholic teachings on homosexuality, the ordination of women and celibacy come to mind. The calling for the withdrawal of German troops from Afghanistan in a sermon on New Year's Day became well known or, if you like, notorious, as well. The representative of Germany's 25 million Protestants, who revels in the role of a moral authority, who has in that capacity criticised bankers for their greed during the financial crisis and condemned all forms of "excess", vocally declared that "Nothing is good in Afghanistan" and urged a speedy withdrawal of the German troops.

Now I will let you in on a secret about German psychology. You can bet your last penny that, if a German opposes a war -- ANY war -- he is really, deep down, opposing WWII, where the evil Americans attacked a trusting and innocent Germany to prevent it from completing their great patriotic deed.

"There is no such thing as a 'just war.' I cannot legitimize it from a Christian point of view," the bishop had stated, and: "There is nothing right in Afghanistan. All these strategies have just obscured the fact that soldiers are using their guns and even killing civilians."

Asked whether that applies to the war against Nazi Germany as well, the reply was affirmative: "They always say, if the Allies hadn’t attacked there wouldn’t have been freedom. But I say — why wasn’t there a strategy to avoid war? Why wasn’t the German opposition to Hitler strengthened? Why weren’t the rails leading to Auschwitz bombed?" And who gives an aviating fornication for the fact that is was the "strategy to avoid war" in the first place that enabled Hitler to turn into a threat to the entire free world.

Predictably, such history-relativising and responsibility-misaligning statements evoked a groundswell of support from the leftist German mainstream, public and media.

And now for the really interesting detail: The bishop is, interest- but not really amazingly, a bishoppette.

That women, known for granting the disgusting German tabloid BILD (no links to BILD from my blogs) interviews about her love life and her theology, never misses a snide remark about the Catholic church, like, for example "I'm not an infallibe papette", which proves either that she doesn't deserve her doctorate in theology or that she is an intellectually dishonest hack and oughtn't to head a Protestant kindergarden, let alone the Protestant church. Papal infallibility is clearly defined, strictly limited and has been executed twice, namely by Pope Pius IX in 1854 regarding the Immaculate Conception and by Pope Pius XII in 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary. But that theologian can safely assume that BILD readers don't know that anyway and whatever if it only makes such a great point against that evil old man in Rome whose throne even SHE (SHE SHE!) won't be -- horribile dictu -- able to reach. All this, mind you, goes by the label of "improving ecumenism".

We have, incidentally, reported on Margot Kässmann already when she was shameless enough to equate the radicalism, religious zeal and potential danger of Muslim and Christian converts and about the big slime spot she left in the Scripture when she twisted it to justify the breach of her marital vows. This bishopette, notabene, is divorced.

But as usual, not the problem is the problem, but how people react to it. The entire leftist public and media have their Attends in a knot to protect this paragon of leftist, i.e. rotten-to-the-core and depraved, values. Her organisation explicitly "covers her back" and the online fora are atwitter with statements saying that this is basically a good thing because it proves that she is, after all, human. And that when we all thought, just like she did herself, that she is godlike. Just imagine for a fraction of a moment what had happened, had a Catholic bishop made the same "honest mistake".

I, personally, find it almost a relief that her statements can now safely be dismissed not just as the the unbalanced rantings of an unhinged woman drugged by the thought of her own importance, but as the unbalanced rantings of an unhinged alcoholic woman drugged by the thought of her own importance. With a blood alcohol level of 1.54 o/oo, a non-alcoholic would have been, at best, able to find the next lavatory in time, but not his car, let alone open it, start it and drive it. That is not bad in itself, she is neither the first nor the last alcoholic in such an office, what IS bad is that she thought that she could get away with it (and that, so it seems, she WILL get away with it) and didn't even bother to call a taxi. Being high on one's own inflated ego and being high on alcohol is, in the end, difficult to tell apart, or so I guess.

If Margot Kässmann was, so far, the first bishopette of the German Protestant church, she is now the first booze-bishopette of the same church. And the latter is only the to-be-expected consequence of the former.

Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.

The Call of the Double-X-Chromosome

This is from my German blog. The header is picking up that of an article in the German newspaper "Tagesspiegel", which is, notabene, considered "conservative". Under the headline "The Call of The Muezzin", Claudia Keller, always out to explain to unappreciative Germans the virtues of Islam, writes something that is (I am trying to translate my native language anger) "so abysmally dumb, shit-for-brain-bottomless stupid, self destructive, undignified and footling that it must have been written by a woman about women." The quote from the Tagesspiegel says:

Convert? To Islam? Unthinkable for many. But every year it is done by thousands in Germany. Most of them are women. Three encounters.

Sonja did it, to be recognized as a mother and homemaker. Franziska, because she was enthusiastic about the romantic, fateful element in it. Ulrike wanted to escape the achievement-oriented society.

To this, I then add: "And they all did it because they are *umb *unts."

One may approve of such vulgarity or not, but true it is. They embrace Islam because they associate the role of a mother and homemaker with the humiliating, undignified and ultimately pornographic status Islam assigns to women, they are good for nothing and rationalize their justified feeling of inadequacy by "wanting to escape the achievement-oriented society" and, at least to me, worst, they consider a medieval death cult with doubtful aesthetics, that cultivates a sick image of masculinity where homosexuality is as strictly taboo-ed as widely practised, "fateful" and "romantic". Well, at least now I know why "romance", this pukeworthy Americanism for "love", disgusts me so much. For heaven's sake! Look at that woman. The word "simpering" must have been INVENTED to describe her!

(She) doesn't feel completely at home in the Wedding [a Berlin suburb] mosque. The Macho ways of many Arab men go on her nerves. She won't concentrate so hard on her work for the mosque in the future.

My guess is that she won't stay for ever a "Muslima" and embrace wicca, satanism or Bach flowers next, which will be a good thing, because otherwise one of those romantic Muslim men will apply a fateful beating to her to wipe that smug smile off her face.

Apropos beating!

... that the husband is allowed to beat his wife if she doesn't obey him and goes astray, applies only to "extreme circumstances", when nothing else helps. She herself wouldn't be in for anything like that anyway [We are relieved!], she as a convert, is much more devout than her husband who doesn't take religion all that seriously anyway and doesn't visit the mosque. "I am very worried because of that, Jasmin [That's the one who wants to escape the achievement-oriented society!] says. She would like to save her husband from hell, but so far all discussions led to nothing.

Maybe that is because he considers her the moron she is. Maybe Islam HAS a point, after all. (That was sarcasm!)

The article says, too (and appreciatively, by the way), that the Muslim organisation "Islamarchiv in Soest" estimates the current number of German converts to be 25,000, two thirds of them women. And now the INcredible part: Previous to 9/11 between 200 and 250 Germans converted to Islam, post-911 1,000, 2,000, once even 4,000, a year. Should those figures be authentic (and I think they are, more or less) the mixture of oestrogen-addled brains, anti-Americanism, self-hatred and anticipatory obedience is stunning!

The Evil of Degeneracy on Both Sides of the Atlantic

At IBA I found a copied and pasted article about the odious Polanski case by one Rob Taylor who was so far unknown to me. The good thing is that I thus hadn't to give him a link, the bad one is that now I DO know who Rob Taylor is and that he irritated me enough to comment on something I'd rather prefered to ignore.

Basically, it is all about "the evil of Old Europe’s degeneracy" and while the author doubtlessly managed to show how well read he is (whatever that is worth), he failed to prove what, about Polanski's crime as well as about those who defend him, is particularly European. At the end of the day, we have just another pretentious bit of pseudo-intellectual hogwash that serves as an excuse to vent some pretty unpalatable resentments insupportable by reason. Frankly, anybody who talks so much about "degenerates" and what they are doing, gives some reasonable cause for the suspicion that he is somewhat obsessed with it and that gives me the creeps.

Not too surprisingly, this valiant degenerate-buster isn't all that accurate when it comes to facts and I think facts do count, even or maybe particularly if somebody is in the middle a full-blown self-righteous moral outrage. Polanski did NOT "rape that girl violently". If Taylor had bothered to read the notes of the victim's evidence at The Smoking Gun (but then, maybe he has and just doesn't care because it stands in the way of his own verbosity) it would have become obvious even to him that if Polanski would have raped the girl, as opposed to "statutorily raped", the court would have had him by the balls for rape and not for "statutory rape". But then, maybe the court was staffed with evil degenerates from Old Europe. As it really was, the girl maybe complied. She admitted that she had sex before, and at a previous "photo op" Polanski had made her pose topless as well, so she, sexually experienced as she was, must have had at least a whiff of what he was up to. Yet she STILL went with him again to a second "photo session". Obviously the court didn't believe her half-hearted claims of having resisted or -- again -- they would have gotten him for rape and not for statutory rape.

What to make of a mother who lets her 13-year-old daughter go on a hop with such a DOM I better don't say here and no, I am NOT defending Polanski. The fact that his victim was maybe complying (and her mother plain and simply gutter trash) does NOT make him ONE LITTLE BIT better. To make that clear once and for all: A man who has, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, sex with a girl of 13 and knows, as Polanski did, about her age, ought never to leave his prison cell again or at least not entire.

My point is, rather, to speak up for "Old Europe", not to relativize what Polanski did and I think I have a strong case. In evilly degenerate Old Europe, be it back in the Seventies or now, you'd have trouble to find a mother who would be so readily prepared to pimp her underage daughter, whereas in morally upright, clean and family-values-orientated America they just have -- I have covered the topic before -- a cult of "beauty pageants" and "children's beauty pageants" that has elevated the pimping of little girls to an art form and an industry. I don't think it's easy to make a seven-year old girl look like a 30-year old cheap hooker, but they manage.




All this, mind you, is NOT evil and degenerate and, above all, does NOT cater for pedophiles, it is just an expression of healthy, jolly-hockeysticks American family life.

You'll have, too, to go a long way, to find in evil Old Europe, chock-full of degenerates, a Photoshop-service like that, if at all:

Different from the evil, sick and degenerate Old Europeans, Americans are also refreshingly up-front when it comes to the question of what all this is about:

Sadly, it is not a bit funny and if I see Polanski's victim plus Mommy Dearest now posing together, I catch myself first rummaging for my pukebag and then asking myself whether all this is maybe very much in line with the American culture of female attention whoring:

Samantha Geimer (the victim), right, and her mother Susan Gailey arrive at the premiere of the HBO Documentary "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" in New York, on Tuesday, May 6, 2008.

Fancy that: There are two women, one the victim of pedophilia, the other one the pimpette mother of same victim and here they strut, preen and simper at the premiere of a documentary as if it were about them and not about the man who had had illicit sex with one of them as a child while the other one was, practically, consenting.

All this, again, does not make Polanski even a bit better and I fail to see what Polanski's work has to do with it anyway. A pedophile is a pedophile is a pedophile. I find the argument of the "great artist" sickeningly amoral. Let's say, for argument's sake, that Polanski would have spent all the years since 1977 in prison or at least in a situation where he couldn't approach and ensnare barely pubescent girls. What would we have missed? Yeah, right. A couple of good movies. Not more. Get your values in perspective!

Is this a feminist point of view? Good joke! Predictably, those loud-mouthed jerkettes, the most vicious enemies of other women, were the first ones to speak up for Polanski, see... [The links to the cases of feminists defending Polanski I'd provided are dead now. As I've learned about a petition from 2009 demanding a pardon for him in the meantime, I'd like to mention a couple of names from the signee roster and the names of others who defended Polanski publicly: Woody Allen, Harvey Weinstein, Whoopi Goldberg, Kate Winslet, Natalie Portman, Meryl Streep, Catherine Deneuve. So what do we have here? A pedophile, a DOM, several women who stridently supported the unspeakable and unspeakably false-faced #metoo campaign, and a woman whose denouncement of same campaign doesn't seem quite so stellar anymore, now we know that. - The Editrix January 2018.]

Talking about feminism and back to the children's beauty pageants: I wonder what those pimpettes mothers who groom their little daughters for such contests have to say about "women's rights" and the "sexual liberation" of women. I remain adamant that no sane, red-blooded father wants his little girl to pose like that and that they would forbid it had they only the balls. So I boldly claim that those female corruptors of their own children have very probably the upper hand in the family already, if they aren't "single mothers" to begin with, that is. But then, I may be wrong here. After all, I was born and bred in evil, sick, degenerate Old Europe and although OUR fathers may be like that, what do I know about the joys of the non-degenerate life of American families.

I realize quite well that a penchant for very young females is a biological male trait. I am not naive. Maybe you won't believe this, but I know from the time I used to work with horses that even stallions recognize the younger ones and prefer them. I just think that childhood is, if not a biological, but a civilisatory achievement and to end it for the sake of sexual gratification is uncivilised, barbaric and a civilisatory advanced society needs to taboo and severely penalise it.

Another aspect is that I doubt Samantha Geimer, the victim, has done pre-and barely pubescent girls in other cultures a favour with her tawdry exhibition of "forgiveness" towards and exculpation of Polanski, but what the heck. Any- (But ANY-!)thing for some minutes in the limelight. Can you imagine a boy who'd been sexually abused as a child and who'd then pose in "sexy" clothes in front of an audience, an audience, mind you, that is fully aware of his history? I can't.

One last thing and I wasn't sure whether I'd go too far here, specifically as this will exceed the topic of feminism for which this blog stands. However, this "evil degenerate Old Europe" bit made me increasingly angry in the process of writing this entry. So here it is:

Dear Rob Taylor, Old Europe may not always have behaved as well as human decency would have required it towards people of your skin colour (or towards people of their own skin colour) over the course of its history, but, believe me, different from your country, blacks, few as they were here, have never been enslaved at this side of the Atlantic, and even with the feudal system in place, NOBODY has ever been enslaved here. And with which the Kennedy family got away in -- notabene -- 20th century America... that would make any European Renaissance prince, including those of Borgia ancestry, faint.

---

In the process of the modest research for this entry I was appalled to find that "child beauty pageants" are held, albeit not very profusely, in Britain as well. But Britain, this staunch ally of bright and beautiful America, doesn't fall under the definition of "Old Europe" in the Rumsfeldian sense anyway.

Fat Is A Feminist Issue Indeed

This is one of those little essays I wrote after I first hit the Internet and discovered, the proverbial babe in the woods, feminist message boards more than ten years ago. I have edited it a bit to get rid of the worst smell of naivité.

For women, as much they'd like to appear as being above it, there is one central topic: other women's looks and discussing women's looks is, as every man has to learn the hard way, a volatile topic at best, a snake pit at worst. The following is not a verbatim transcript of message board discussions, but an overview of some of the worst clichés with which a bunch of brainwashed whiners bores us stiff on a regular basis. However, there are different approaches to tackle the problem of one's own inadequacies:

The "It's Conveniently All The Men's Fault" Approach

I feel sorry for these girls that have allowed society to manipulate their minds into believing this is desirable and is in their best interests, but gees..... what do you do to wake women up that they don’t have to take this type of dictates from society, and there is no need for them to flip flop the opposite extreme direction when they wake up and want to become equal and human. I have had my share of manipulations, abuses, and dictates as a female and I realize its not easy for a female who sees very little value in their selves to break loose from those feelings especially when there is always going to be SOME men in society that are going to promote women in negative, unhealthy, or demeaning ways like the modeling and fashion industry.

Well, for starters there are certain unwritten customs governing conversation and the regularity with which they recur among otherwise noticeably different people is first truly amazing and second an indicator that something seriously stinks. For example, if somebody says "..and if you'll forgive me for saying so…" it's invariably the opening for something absolutely unforgivable. Likewise, if somebody says "I am no antisemite but…" one can be 100% sure an antisemitic rant will follow and if, in the course of a conversation covering women's looks, somebody (invariably female) says "I feel sorry for … " [insert models, slim women, generally all non-frumps and -slovens] one can wager one's right of primogeniture against a stale bun that she damn well isn't.

Which brings us right on topic!

Now what IS that obscure entity "society", which is to blame for each and every evil, iniquity, injustice and superfluous kilo? WHO, for heaven's sake, IS "society"? People are not brought up by some nondescript "society", or are they? They are not even brought up by parents but, even in those ever-dwindling cases that there IS a father, and one who is allowed to oppen his mouth, present, by women. THEY shape the young woman's mind.

Men, apart from those who are hell-bent on having a clothes rack to impress their fellow social climbers, like their women soft and rounded and more often than not don't even notice clothing in detail. "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world", as the feminists are fond of saying, an insight baffling in its simplicity, accuracy and insight, albeit only taken seriously when it suits the feminist agenda. Women, with the only exception maybe of the truly desperate ones, give a flying fornication about what men think about their looks, it's other women they want to impress.

Now WHO gives Barbie Dolls to little girls? Certainly not the fathers. Men tend to find Barbie Dolls rather silly and I have yet to meet a father who wants his daughter to look like that. That said, it is conveniently overlooked that Mattel, the Barbie-makers, offer quite a lot of exercise options for Barbie, which is certainly a better incentive for girls than teaching them that being fat frees them from male oppression.

Whose idol was the pathologically self-centered, bulimic clothes rack Princess "Di"? Women's or men's? I know only a very few men who were smitten by her, but I know hardly a woman who was not, and from WHOM got poor old Charlie all the flak when he dared to settle for the more homely, but obviously truly devoted, Camilla? Other men? You must be kidding!

But let's assume, for argument's sake, that an anorexic figure IS a male dream and IF it shapes the minds and self-esteem of girls and women, then WHY does obesity outweigh anorexia in real life by far?

It is my firm belief that behind all that shrill obsessing about "dictates from society", "men ... that are going to promote women in negative, unhealthy, or demeaning ways" and the (totally male dominated, of course) "modeling and fashion industry" are two ulterior motives: First, it serves as an instrument of power for Dworkin (ever seen a picture of her?), McKinnon and other vicious hypocrites to reach their ultimate goal, i.e. making women's (and men's, for that) lives miserable. The strategy taps into a potential conflict between men and women. It encourages women to resent men for feeling concerned about their growing weight. And we all know that men never feel real concern or compassion. Hell they hardly feel much at all, or do they? Second, for the majority of women, it serves as an excuse and an ideological underpinning for the simple thing of letting themselves go, namely to go grossly fat. Feminists have a perverse agenda, which glorifies fatness.

Why don't those clay-footed philanthropists "feel sorry" for the poor, pathetic, disorientated female misfits who insult our sense for aesthetics, take two seats in the bus and one and a half in the plane, burden our health system with their cardio-vascular disorders, circulatory disturbances, respiratory and worn-out joint complaints and are just a general pain in the proverbial, and don't even BEGIN telling me they aren't because they damn well ARE. And PARTICULARLY so, because they wouldn't need to be that way. We are not talking about cripples here.

So nobody tells them (or DARES telling them) that it is nothing but their own responsibility to seek therapy and general help and that they might -- just might -- try to eat less and start some exercising. No, they are told they are "victims", a common outlook, which is widely sanctioned by the politically correct psychotherapist mafia and societal mainstream. There is no more viciously malevolent and anti-social sentence than "There there, I can relate to you" because anybody who isn't that fat damn well can't. After Holocaust survivors, cancer survivors, rape survivors, abuse of various sorts survivors, we now have -- obesity survivors! The terminology reveals the agenda: "Something bad has happened to me, it must be someone else’s, preferably the men's, doing". By standing up for fat women, feminism creates a perverted system of female solidarity. Fat women get encouragement, support and even acclaim for an unhealthy lifestyle. Feminists WANT women fat. They want to proselytize women who feel that they are ugly or potentially rejected by men. These are the first and easiest prey for an ideology that fosters men-hating. It's not men who force their views on women; it's a women-shaped society that forces its views on women and it is not beyond feminists to fish even at the very bottom of that foodchain.

But let's change the object. I don't share the condescending attitude of many gestagen-type, naturally slim women towards their less fortunate sisters and their definition of "fat", a definition that quite often starts at wearers of more than a size 8 at a height of 6'10". As somebody who is constantly fighting a, mostly successful, but sometimes grueling, battle against age- and hormone-induced weight gain, I do, however, resent the victimology mentality that is slowly creeping in everywhere and which has taken over the fat-women-community long ago.

Here we have, and I guarantee those quotes are authentic, a different specimen among those brainwashed losers, this one, rather refreshingly, at least without any pretensions at empathy or analysis. This approach is not so much about blaming one's own misery on the men, but to vent one's frustration about one's fat- (although probably not JUST fat-) induced low social status mainly on other women, which shows that sheer and undiluted grudge can sometimes render better results than phony analysis.

The "I'm Absolutely Desperate But Can't Stop Eating" Approach

"sounds to me like you are afraid of the idea that big can be beautiful...why are you afraid?"

"And big men DO LOVE big women because they know that big women, unlike skinny little sluts, will 1) treat them right...ie: not use them for money, not abuse them, not cheat on them and 2) will take care of themselves..ie: not do drugs, etc."

"And, more and more statistics are coming out that say that more men love big women than we know but will not admit it because assholes like you will degrade them for it."

"And statistics today show that big does not equal unhealthy nor unattractive nor lazy nor stupid...in fact, all the stats show just the opposite…"
"…but you, of course, will deny it because you are afraid...you are afraid to open you mind, go against what society and your parents say and to think for yourself."

"…and BBW magazine and Dimensions and Mode would not be selling millions of copies a day and men would not be buying those magazines and would not be writing to the editors of those magazines raving about how they love big women and there would be no men putting ads in those magazines and in newspapers all across the country looking for BIG, BEAUTIFUL WOMEN and the larger size women's fashion industry would not be a multimillion dollar industry.

"BTW, I have seen some really nasty skinny women so I'd shut up if I were you because you do not know what you are talking about. I have seen skinny women who don't shave, don't care about what they wear (they will wear ripped, stained and ill-fitting clothes), will have a cigarette hanging out of their mouth, guzzling beer or vodka, popping pills, throwing up in the streets and passing out."

"At least the so-called "nasty" fat women will shave, shower, be clean and sober and disease-free, will fix their hair nice (as opposed to the rat's nests of the skinny women), will have manicures and pedicures done and be smelling of Georgio instead of stale smoke and alcohol." "Yeah, big women are so nasty, right? So, go ahead. Go after the crab and lice and aids ridden skinny women. If that is what you are into!!!!"

The amount of raw enmity was baffling and left many questions to ask. What does an aesthetic judgment have to do with fear for example, (by the way, it's an old leftist mantra to denounce the conscious, well-founded and reasonable rejection of something as "fear), or what decency and character, cleanliness and grooming have to do with a person's dress size. Or whether the increasing XXL market has less to do with a wishful-thinking-induced sudden preference of men for fat women, instead of an ever growing number of fat women anyway. I asked all this, but to no avail.

Of course, and everybody who has but only one eye to see will have noticed that slovens and frumps are more widespread among the fattie-faction, presumably because they've given up long ago anyway or because they didn't care all that much to begin with, but I was good and refrained from mentioning it.

My take on all that? Simple! Telling women that fat is beautiful is like prescribing tranquilizers to a person who suffers from the squits so that he (or rather she) doesn't mind anymore what she's doing to her pants.

A Plea for Mendacity

Sometimes, I dislike America intensely. Maybe it's partly a matter of linguistics, but still...

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's mother said yesterday that she was praying for her son as pressure mounted for a criminal probe into his secret trip to visit his lover in Argentina. "I love him and support him," Margaret Sanford, 83, said while sitting on a wooden picnic bench outside her home.

After going missing for days, the married father of four admitted Wednesday to a yearlong affair with a woman who lives in Argentina. In a tearful news conference, the two-term Republican asked for forgiveness and explained that a friendship with the woman had blossomed into romance a year ago, around the time of a state-funded trip to South America.

For Heaven's Sake, can't she pray in privacy? Certainly her brand of Christianity hasn't done much for the son she (presumably) brought up. Alright, we Europeans (at least we Germans and certainly the English) are a stuck-up bunch when it comes to religion, but this is obscene.

But what I find even worse is to describe the making of an adulterous relationship as "a friendship with (a) woman (that) had blossomed into romance." Romance? BLOSSOMED? Pukebags anybody?

Not that politicians at this end (or people generally) do not commit adultery. But at least it isn't hyped to the max (to use another disgusting Americanism) or maybe they are just not as often found out, be that because they are less dumb than their American counterparts or because there is just less interest in other peoples' sex lifes. Whatever, so far we have been spared that cheesy view of adultery, the snivelling of the perpetrators and, thank God for small mercies, Mum's sanctimonious drivel as the icing on a turd that tries to sell itself as a chocolate truffle.

There IS, after all, a difference between mendacity and hypocrisy. The former can sometimes be necessary for sanity's sake, the latter destroys it.

The rest of the tripe is here.

Oversexed, Overpaid and Over There with the Noble Savages

Or: Joanie Making Politics on Her Back

I admit I hate the Dutch. I hate the way one, being German, used to be treated in that pokey little country (it has become better over the years, though, but I still hate them), I hate that they nevertheless had no compunctions about taking our money, and I hate that sanctimonious post-war attitude specifically because the valiant polder-dwellers had been the only people in WWII that surrendered to Germany without having fired a single shot and who had delivered their Jews gratuitously and free platform edge. I hate their ugly, pink, fat and blonde royals whom even two generations of inordinately goodlooking German husbands weren't able to grade up and I hate, once again, their sanctimoniousness which showed, impressively although not exclusively, when they disinvited the future father-in-law of the future fat, pink and blonde king from the wedding because he had once hold a mediocre office in the Cabinet of a third-rate, long forgotten South American dictator, whereas same future king's German grandfather had only been in the SS.

And BOY! DO I hate that unspeakable slut that made headlines recently because Geert Wilders (whom the Dutch don't deserve and whose only shortcoming is that he is looking irritatingly Dutch) had cited her as a prime example of the moral decline of the elites in his country.

Joanie de Rijke is a Dutch journalist who was kidnapped in Afghanistan last November when all she wanted was to do some serious research on on the deaths of ten French soldiers hacked to pieces by the Taliban for the arse-and-tits magazine she is working for. Joanie looks painfully Dutch and exactly like the simpering silly bitch she is.

When she met the Taliban to 'hear their side of the story', the valiant freedom fighters, who would have thought so, kidnapped and the commander frequently raped her but not nearly enough because she wrote a book about it later and regurgitated it in chat shows (see picture) too. She still thinks (if one can call it that) that she was not taking unnecessary risks.

“This story” Wilders said, “is a perfect illustration of the moral decline of our elites. They are so blinded by their own ideology that they turn a blind eye to the truth. Rape? Well, I would put this into perspective, says the leftist journalist: the Taliban are not monsters. Our elites prefer to deny reality rather than face it. Our elites, whether they are politicians, journalists, judges, subsidy gobblers or civil servants, have dumped common sense in order to deny reality. It is not just this raped journalist who is suffering from Stockholm syndrome, but the entire Dutch elite. The only moral reference they have is: do not irritate the Muslims - that is the one thing they will condemn.”

So what did Joanie say:

"It's not black and white. It was the commander who raped me. I wanted to give vent to my hatred, to chop his head off and kick it off the cliff. He was schizophrenic: the following day, he said he was sorry. In that sort of situation - no matter how awful - you develop a bond with those people. You have to, if you want to survive. You could say the hatred and that bond go side by side."

"Just let me make one thing clear: I hate him for what he did to me. I hate him because he raped me. I was very, very mad and I wanted to kill him right away. But the day after it happened, he more or less asked me to forgive him. That was very confusing for me. It was a very schizophrenic situation because he had mood swings. I just had to cope with that. Normally you can show that you are angry but I couldn't of course. I had to get on with them. I just couldn't say to this commander what I was really thinking because then he would have killed me right away."

Very very mad Joanie said, too, that she was nevertheless shown respect.

Which eerily recalls the old joke, where the lady of the house is one female short for a proper dinner placement and, desperate, puts good clothes on a pretty maid and hopes for the best. When she asks her afterwards whether she's been respected, the girl replies: "Yes ma'am. Once on the balcony and twice in the garden."

And now Joanie is angry - not at her rapist but at Geert Wilders: "Geert Wilders bedrijft politiek over mijn rug." "He makes politics on my back." To make politics on her back is something to which Joanie can rightfully claim exclusive rights.

It may be a measure of the decline of our culture that even the attention whores have no class anymore. Many years ago Oriana Fallaci delivered a piece of memorable journalism and later recalled:

... that she found Khomeini intelligent, and “the most handsome old man I had ever met in my life. He resembled the ‘Moses’ sculpted by Michelangelo.” And, she said, Khomeini was “not a puppet like Arafat or Qaddafi or the many other dictators I met in the Islamic world. He was a sort of Pope, a sort of king—a real leader. And it did not take long to realize that in spite of his quiet appearance he represented the Robespierre or the Lenin of something which would go very far and would poison the world. People loved him too much. They saw in him another Prophet. Worse: a God.”

And nobody laughed or expressed embarrassment after it appeared in The New Yorker in 2006. It was, after all, by "La Fallaci".

It was a doubtful thing, anyway, to give Khomeini publicity to begin with, but Fallaci didn't really do research to inform but was collecting scalps and thus couldn't resist.

She, too, cashed in on matters which had better remained private. What does one call a woman who had an, as an uncritically adoring media called it, "tempestuous" affair with a much younger man who then kicked his unborn child out of her womb, a woman who didn't leave that man and rather wrote two books about it?

And exactly like that was her criticism of Islam, shrill and PMS-ing hysterical. She stomped her little foot and wrote not what Islam is, but how "La Fallaci" found it.

But to do her justice, at least Fallaci was seriously attractive, did not write for crappy men's mags AND ABOVE ALL SHE WAS NOT DUTCH.

But what makes a serious journalist and writer like Fallaci and a floozy like Joanie de Rijke tick when putting themselves in harm's way to then write books about it? What made the ageing Fallaci swoon and drool over an old billy goat like Khomeini? Shameless lucre? Yes, but not JUST that. Attention whoredom? Yes, and again not just that. I think it's boredom. Boredom with their lifes, with the "good" men they meet, boredom with the little things in life, with a normal, ordinary life, with ordinary, everyday human decency. An able, clever woman like Fallaci goes and interviews Khomeini and Kissinger and writes well-received books about an unsavoury relationship with an unsuitable man, a silly bitch like de Rijke goes to Afghanistan to be raped by a Taliban, then writes a book about it to be totally overwhelmed by the brouhaha she caused and which to understand she is too pathetic. And at the bottom of the barrel, yes at the absolute bottom of the very same barrel we find those females who go and marry death row inmates. Our only hope remains that they'll never find out how to write books.

Hat tip: VFR.

---

Edited to add: To end this on a conciliatory note, I'd like to say finally something nice about the Dutch. There IS after all, something that is bigger than their dhimmitude and that's their tightfistedness. Which shows that they are not totally without principles. I overlooked that when I first read the article in the Brussels Journal from which I took the Wilders-quote.

As Joanie put it so endearingly:

“The Belgians have done nothing. They said it was a matter for the Dutch. And the Dutch authorities said they never pay ransom. In Afghanistan they know well enough that Western governments pay up after an abduction. Germany, Italy and France have all paid ransoms.”

Which may not be a terrific argument, but it at least reminds of another one of those vacuous, thrill-addicted women, the German archaeologist Susanne Osthoff, who was kidnapped in Iraq and whom I will now take up from the blog bilges in the next entry.

Edited to add: Done!

To Each Her Own

Carrie Prejean, the oldest looking twentysomething in the history of mankind, has dared to have an opinion in the wrong place, namely at a beauty pageant. That is one of those disgusting, undignified American spectacles, where the "beauty" of walking, breathing breast implants with blonde manes on top and long legs below is judged. Of course, they have talent as well. They are striving to care for the special education needs of elementary school children or cure cancer. Carrie had made a mistake in that she wasn't all over her tolerant top about "gay marriage" when asked. One can safely assume now that she didn't twig the implications of that question and that the answer she gave would cost her years of efforts of acquiring a spectacular, carefully and studied dishevelled blonde mane and turning a (presumably) normal, even pretty, young face into a frightening frozen mask with a lot of teeth.

One could ask now what a nice Christian girl is doing at such a cynical, lewd, lower class public display, and draw the conclusion that one thing Carrie isn't: an icon of and victim for any "conservative" cause.

One could ask now, too, what business a disgusting poofter like Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr. has to judge over female beauty.

Well... I guess "business" is the operative word and maybe such an understanding of female beauty is even asking for exactly such a judge.

And now excuse me, I am going to throw up.

How White Guilt Has Created A Monster

The Al Guardian knows, as usual, what REALLY matters. Oh well, what can one expect from a medium that is constantly spoiling the taste of the masses by bandying about disgustingly euphemistic lower middleclass-isms like "communication devices" or "anger management":

Campbell in court accused of assault
Andrew Clark in New York
Wednesday June 28, 2006

Naomi Campbell added a touch of glamour to a downtown Manhattan courtroom yesterday as she faced one of several allegations of assaulting her staff with communication devices.
[...]
Ms Campbell, 36, faces a charge of second degree assault after a former maid, Ana Scolavino, accused her of hurling a jewel-encrusted Blackberry emailing device at her head, leaving a 7cm (3in) gash. Ms Campbell is said to have become enraged when she was unable to find a pair of jeans she wanted to wear for an appearance on the Oprah Winfrey show.

Shortly after her arrest in March Ms Campbell described the allegation as "completely untrue". This week another former assistant, Gaby Gibson, filed a lawsuit in New York's supreme court, claiming her employer smacked her on the head with a mobile phone - also in an altercation over missing denim.
[...]
Ms Campbell has a history of vitriolic disagreements with employees. An administrative assistant alleged in 2003 that the model had hurled a phone, assaulted her and held her hostage in a Beverly Hills hotel. In February 2000 she pleaded guilty in court in Toronto to beating a former assistant, Georgina Galanis, who said Campbell had attacked her several times, at one point throwing a telephone at her. Ms Campbell said at the time she blamed her temper on having been abandoned by her father in childhood.
[...]

And nobody laughed.

Ana Scolavino is a Chilean married to an American, Georgina Galanis doesn't sound quite like Aunt Jemima either. Now imagine a WHITE employer whacking her BLACK "staff" with "communication devices"! If that bulimic bitch weren't Black, they'd simply sent her back from whence she came or to where she belongs long ago.

I am not saying that there isn't a comparably humiliating picture of Campbell anywhere. But I have yet to find it and I searched literally for hours. To find this picture of Moss cost me about 20 seconds.

What a degenerated society, where a drug-addicted, totally and utterly unhinged hag without the slightest ability for restraint or dignity can become stinking rich and -- much worse -- a role-model just because clothes look good on her in photographs. Whether all that is sugar-coated by cute-isms like "brat", "wild child" or possessing a "fiery nature", because of her race (the media is by far not as forgiving when it comes, for example, to Kate Moss, who is, compared to Campbell, a paragon of virtue) or whether they really just don't see what a monster they are courting, or better: creating, is, when all is said and done, immaterial.

But she added a touch of glamour (whatever that is) to the courtroom -- and that's all that matters, after all.

Women Can't Do Wrong and Children Have No Lobby

Today, Patsy Ramsey, the mother of murdered child beauty queen JonBenet, made the frontpage of Google news by dying from ovarian cancer.

I take this welcome opportunity to engage in one of my occasional anti-American rants. They usually happen when I am overwhelmed by the guilt of being a self-hating German and ranting about American shortcomings usually helps. (That was sarcasm, by the way.) This time it's about the sick, perverted American cult of "proms", "beauty pageants" and "children's beauty pageants". The difference is that the former lets a sixteen-year old girl look like a 30-vear old hooker, while the latter lets a four-year old girl look like a 30-year old CHEAP hooker.

Whether the unspeakable Ramsey woman killed her child or not is not for me to judge. To me, a mother who pimps her little girl to pose "sexily" in revealing outfits in front of a bunch of sick paederasts after she has lumbered her, true to form, with a pretentious, crappy name like "JonBenet" for life, has killed her child's soul anyway long before its physical death.

Aren't any feminists or child protection groups out there fighting this sort of degenerate spectacles? But I guess they are too busy fantasising about an all-dyke society and how to reduce men to sperm-donor status and and are unmovedly watching when tiny girls are victimised for their mother's need for vicarious fame and not-quite-so-vicarious profit.

Women can't do any wrong and children have no lobby.

Yes, my non-American reader, "beauty pageants", those for children included, are a multi-billion business and the girl below is not older than six. She can't be older because she was six when she was mudered by some pervert. Or rather, the pervert killed what her mother hadn't killed before.



"Love, purity and joy" said the inscription on JonBenet's tombstone, just those three things the little girl surely did NOT possess anymore when she died.

I remember having once read about the "Münchhausen-by-proxy-syndrome", a condition that lets mothers clandestinely make their children sick, or their sick children even sicker, to get attention and praise for their "care". Children are known to have died from this.

Only women are suffering from this "syndrome". If men were largely guilty of this, nobody would have bothered to introduce a special medical condition, fancy name included.

It would have been simply called "Evil".

The Phoney Face of Grief

I have yet to see a more disgusting display of hypocrisy and attention whoredom.