Shortly before today’s press conference of the Islamic lobby association “Inssan e.V.” to present the current figures of “Islam and Muslim hostility in Germany”, the head of the ” Research Group on Worldviews in Germany” (fowid) Carsten Frerk has published an extensive analysis. Frerk warns against uncritically accepting the data of Inssan or CLAIM, as they are ideologically distorted and do not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

If one believes the data from Inssan (Arabic: “human being”) and CLAIM (“Alliance against Islam and Muslimophobia”), the degree of discrimination suffered by Muslims in Germany increases from year to year. But is this statement really in line with empirical findings? Social scientist Carsten Frerk, head of the “Research Group Worldviews in Germany” (fowid), has taken a closer look: “I don’t doubt at all that there is Muslim hostility in our society,” he says, “but with the methods that Inssan or Claim use, this unfortunate phenomenon cannot be reflected in an adequate manner.”

In his study “Muslimfeindlichkeit und Empirie” (Muslim hostility and empiricism), published today on the fowid website, Frerk shows the improper approach of Inssan/CLAIM on the basis of several different issues. This concerns, among other things, the dubious use of figures (for example, percentages are often used instead of absolute figures, which looks more dramatic but says little empirically), the distorted data collection (mosque visitors are overrepresented in the data, although they only represent a minority of Muslims) and the undifferentiated presentation of the incidents (a “mosque attack” can be a thoughtless graffiti or a criminally relevant, anti-Muslim attack).Frerk also criticises the underlying conceptual categories. For example, he shows that “Muslimophobia” is a real phenomenon that can be studied scientifically, while “Islamophobia” and “anti-Muslim racism” are contradictory artificial terms that cannot be used to adequately describe social reality.

These scientific deficits can probably be explained not least by the ideological interests of Inssan e.V. and CLAIM: “In the course of this analysis,” Frerk writes in his study, “the impression became increasingly stronger that Inssan/CLAIM are not concerned with a correct representation of social conditions, but with strengthening the structures of Islamic lobbyism or legalistic Islamism, which plays the ‘discrimination card’ in order to gain advantages over other social groups. It fits in with this that both organisations are considered to be part of the network of the Muslim Brotherhood in Germany.”

This also explains why in recent years there has been “an increasing shift from necessary anti-discrimination work to Islam(ist)ism propaganda”. “The data presented by Inssan and CLAIM on hostility towards Muslims in Germany are extremely questionable for this reason!” says Frerk. He therefore also classifies the decision of German government to promote CLAIM as a “federal central institution” as “extremely questionable”:

“I think that organisations that have such a strong interest in a certain, ideologically distorted perspective on society as Inssan/CLAIM are not suited to collect empirical data, which is urgently needed to reduce real discrimination. We need serious social science research in this area, not state funding of legalistic, political Islam! The federal government should, in my opinion, urgently reconsider its funding practice.”

https://www.giordano-bruno-stiftung.de/meldung/muslimfeindlichkeit-inssan-analyse

Sylvana Simons, once with the Islamist Denk party, is a black anti-racism activist calling for the “decolonisation” of education and the Dutch language. She is one of the hopeful candidates in the country’s general election.

The election program of her party BIJ1 is even more leftist on socio-economic issues than the Socialist Party, and more progressive than D66 on issues such as equality and inclusion.

The municipalities of Amsterdam and Rotterdam have recently had their own role in the slavery past investigated, and are now considering apologizing to the descendants of the enslaved. But the majority of Dutch voters do not think these apologies are necessary. Simons is a passionate supporter of reparations and sees it as proof of the necessity of the BLM movement in the Netherlands.

Other parties are still “insufficiently” aware of how deeply systemic racism is present in the Netherlands, she believes. She wants to tackle discrimination directly in education, in the labour market as well as the housing market. And she believes it is in everyone’s interest that the system of unequal treatment is tackled by the government as soon as possible, “because you yourself could also be the victim next time”.

According to Simons, BIJ1 has received thousands of hateful private messages, comments, emails, posts and tweets. The party has selected 52 messages for her “Black Manifesto”. The far-left Hotline for Discrimination in the Amsterdam Region helped the party to make a selection.

BIJ1 refers to online hatred and threats as part of a larger social problem, in which open racism and sexism go unpunished. According to the party, people are getting away with breaking the law on a large scale because the authorities now do not want or cannot deal with it properly. The legal possibilities and powers to prosecute people for online hatred are too currently limited. The party has called for mass censorship.

That is a political choice, according to BIJ1, who advocated more legislation to stop online hatred. “Anyone who speaks out in our country can expect extra hatred,” said Simons. “But enough is enough. This should stop now. I will continue to fight until the legal system works well for every woman of colour and for everyone else.” Simons was mocked by Geert Wilders in 2016 when she requested full-time security because of “hatred”. The round-the-clock isolation of Geert Wilders due to Islamist threats has lasted almost two decades already.

She told Culturu.com that she expected to receive a lot of resistance in the parliamentary Tweede Kamer specially from the the right-wing. “I know that the knives are already being sharpened in The Hague.”

Simons said she made the choice as a result of some divine intervention: “I experienced my vision as a divine experience […] I had no control over when or how the next intervention was going to come. It was not me. Something happened.”

Simons is a former television presenter, responsible for polarising national discourse on Zwarte Piet, racial profiling and the legacy of slavery dating back to the Dutch colonial era. The Black Lives Matter movement unsurprisingly provided fresh fodder for the racial activist.

“It was good to see that so many people said ‘enough is enough’ and they came out and spoke out,” Simons said of the 2020 BLM rallies in the Netherlands. “And I do also hope that they will use that same voice when we have our general elections,” she said.

“If your reality is that of a young Black person in this country, what you’ll find is that from the moment you enter school, you enter the system. There is bias and prejudice. People have lower expectations of you. People judge you differently,” Simons said.

When tax officials obtained dual nationality data to identify child benefit fraudsters last year, black activists cried “inequality”. As a result, Prime Minister Mark Rutte resigned in January after the country’s Data Protection Authority announced that the tax office’s use of dual nationality data was “unlawful and discriminatory”. Thousands of Moroccan, Turkish and Surinamese families were plunged into debt as a result of the probe. Simons clearly hopes to gain from this fact.

Simons has also complained about a quarter of the population being listed by the national statistics office as having a “migration background”. Polls currently suggest that her crusade against “systemic racism” will fall short of the threshold to enter into parliament despite a huge anti-racism demonstration on Museumplein in the middle of the lockdown last year showing that the anti-racism theme is also alive in the Netherlands.

https://freewestmedia.com/2021/03/16/systemic-racism-becomes-a-theme-in-dutch-election/

By Monica Showalter

After a slew of publicity at the expense of Britain’s queen, Meghan Markle, the Hollywood actress now the so-called Duchess of Sussex has decided she wants to be U.S. president, according to a Daily Mail report.

Meghan Markle will use the furore over her interview with Oprah to launch a political career which could take her all the way to the White House, if rumours circulating around Westminster last week turn out to be accurate.

One senior Labour figure – a veteran of Tony Blair‘s Downing Street administration with strong links to Washington – claimed to The Mail on Sunday that Ms Markle, 39, was networking among senior Democrats with a view to building a campaign and fundraising teams for a tilt at the US Presidency.

Last night, a source close to the Duchess of Sussex declined to comment, but the couple have made little secret of their political beliefs.

Which on first thought, would be over Kamala Harris’s dead body, given that she’s the one tolerating Old Joe until the time comes. But as house-husband Harry says, “What Meghan wants, Meghan gets.”

Who knows what the heck this ambitious bounder has in mind?

The important thing to know is that she’s consorting and meeting with top Democratic political leaders, given that the lady of leisure in her Montecito mansion has lots of time on her hands.

One such meeting we know of is with California’s embattled Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Another possible may be with Team Obama.

After all didn’t both the Obamas and the Sussexes both get buku-bucks Netflix deals? Neither pair has any experience in film, but both somehow got the millions anyway. There doesn’t seem to be anyone else who got those deals. What’s more, Netflix as a company is larded up with Obama former officials.

And didn’t Meghan Markle glowingly “interview” Michelle Obama in a 2019 guest-editing session for limousine-liberal Vogue? Seems the two like each other and share the same leftist wokester values and given the gushiness, may have been working as a team.

It sure seems so, given that Harper’s Bazaar reports that Michelle was feating Meghan as “my friend” and a “thoughtful leader.” Here’s the gushing from Harper’s Bazaar:

When Michelle Obama hops on Instagram to give you a shoutout from the other side of the globe, you know you’re doing something right. Today, the former first lady took to the app to praise Duchess Meghan, whom she called “my friend,” for the work she’s doing during her royal tour of southern Africa.

Meghan and Harry’s trip abroad isn’t just about the meet and greets and photo ops; it’s also about recognizing and raising awareness about organizations doing inspiring work in the area. Last night, for example, the duke and duchess attended a reception for youth leaders, which included Obama Foundation Leaders based in Africa, who are notable rising change-makers in their communities.

The gushing wasn’t just confined to Michelle and Meghan. Harry and Obama figured in this, too. Here’s Vanity Fair with its own round of gushing, from 2017:

2017’s favorite bromance goes to Barack Obama and Prince Harry. They laughed it up at the Invictus Games in Toronto and filmed a charming interview that aired on BBC Radio 4’s Today program. But while it seems like a given for the Obamas to be invited to Prince Harry’s upcoming wedding to Meghan Markle in May, according to reports they may end up getting snubbed to avoid an outright diplomatic crisis.

Take a look at that picture.

They wanted the Obamas at their wedding but apparently the British prime minister at the time (or who knows, maybe the queen?) stopped it.

Bottom line, the Obamas and the Markles go way back, according to past fawning stories, all of them from the fashion press.

The political analysts over at the Conservative Tree House / Last Refuge seem to think the timing of the interview in which Meghan charged the entire royal family with racism, sounded like Classic Obama political hardball, which is to whip up racial divisions ahead of the trial of Minneapolis cop Derek Chauvin, now that riotous public sentiment against cops has died down. Sundance writes:

Media stories often contain the fingerprints of motive, a slight truth hidden in a background of obfuscation, and you can find the leftist activity if you know what to look for.  The buried lede in the story is this short segment:

[…] “One senior Labour figure – a veteran of Tony Blair’s Downing Street administration with strong links to Washington – claimed to The Mail on Sunday that Ms Markle, 39, was networking among senior Democrats“… (read more)

There it is: “networking among senior Democrats.”  That’s the data point to focus on.

That’s the part of the story that tells us exactly what was going on in that Oprah interview; and it is exactly what we suspected it was HERE and HERE.

Of course she was “networking” with “senior Democrats”, specifically she was networking with Obama’s Chicago crew; and that leads to Oprah, Obama’s biggest narrative engineer.

The Markle interview was purposefully orchestrated, racism claims intentionally injected, recorded, and then timed to be released/broadcast the day before the trial against Derek Chauvin while the George Floyd protestors were activated.  This is how the Obama crew operate.  This is how the leftists work.  None of this is accidental and that statement by the “senior Labour figure” is 100% correct…. except for the cover story to hide the motive.

It’s well argued, and could be true.

But Meghan’s interview also served as a guided missile aimed at the British monarchy, which also is worth noting. Recall Obama’s weird fascination with the British rulers, and their amazing failure to impress? Remember Obama’s hideous gift of tapes of his own speeches delivered to the queen? Remember Michelle Obama touching the queen like she was her pal? Remember Michelle Obama’strain-wreck of an argyle outfit? Remember how the Obamas not so secretly hankered for that wedding invitation to Prince William and Duchess Catherine’s 2011 wedding and didn’t get it?

And most important, remember some of what was written at the time, that Obama held a deep-seated grudge from his father’s colonialist experience against Britain in general, which explained why he was always undercutting our ally? Dinesh d’Souza explored this topic in his 2010 book, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage.”

There’s no reason to think the royal family wasn’t a target, every bit as active as Meghan’s presidential ambitions. 

Who the heck would vote for her is another matter, but in this age of electoral fraud, apparently winning isn’t important. Being part of the Obama political machine is, as Joe and Kamala can explain. Whatever may be going on with Meghan’s political ambitions, we can see she’s acting as Joe Biden does to the Obama machine — she’s apparently a willing tool.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/03/so_now_meghan_markle_wants_to_be_us_president.html

“Suddenly you are shown a longer version of the video in which you can clearly see that the Syrian asylum seeker spat once again in the direction of the paramedic,” writes publicist Anabel Schunke on Twitter and asks: “Why was only a different version shown beforehand in which you didn’t get to see that?”
A good question.

It is completely normal that after a spectacular incident, first a video appears, then a second from a different perspective, a third and so on and so forth. The only thing is that the punching of a Syrian in an accommodation centre for asylum fraudsters, who is said to have rioted, punched, kicked and spat in advance, was not the 11th of September or anything like that, which means that there is only this one video that we know from tabloid BILD and the like.

So we really have to ask ourselves the question: Now that the Merkel-critical editor-in-chief Julian Reichel has been booted out, at least temporarily, is BILD becoming a pure propaganda tool of our “Refugees Welcome” government?

And where are the journalistic ethics? Where is the will for truthful reporting? And why are the paramedics being portrayed as the nation’s brutes and the police as his accomplices?

Is a Syrian who riots, beats, kicks and spits in return for admission, board, lodging and pocket money closer to the scumbags working for BILD than a hard-working paramedic and the German police?
Obviously.

Now the criminal also gets the opportunity to spread his lies !And the paramedic is of course the “beating paramedic”. Why isn’t the Syrian called the “spitting” Syrian in the same breath?

Also a good question, which those responsible at the BILD newspaper must justify themselves in accordance with their consciences.

Längeres Video beweist: Syrer spuckte den Sanitäter an!