Archive
Categories

From a German Point of View: a Reply to Lawrence Auster

[This article, with an introduction by Baron Bodissey, was also published in Gates of Vienna]

At May 6, Lawrence Auster posted a comment on Germany‘s reaction on Bin Laden‘s death – a comment suddenly highlighting political tensions most of us are normally not aware of. I think it is worthwhile to examine Mr. Auster‘s argument to make clear the nature of these tensions, and what they could mean to the Counterjihad.

Auster‘s starting point is that Chancellor Angela Merkel has been criminally charged for expressing delight over Bin Laden‘s demise. He then quotes a poll according to which „64 percent of Germans do not see the death of Osama bin Laden as something to be celebrated“. To Auster, this indicates the „spiritual death“ brought upon Germany „by the consistent application of liberalism“.

There are some points Auster doesn‘t seem to understand: First of all, the question was not whether Bin Laden‘s death was good or bad, but whether one should celebrate it. In Germany, many terrorists have been killed by security forces during recent decades, and some commited suicide in jail. In no single case did a German government express satisfaction or delight about it, and in no single case there were public celebrations of the kind we are now witnessing in America. Celebrating anyone‘s death, and be it that of an ennemy, is considered undecent in Germany, and therefore, Mrs. Merkel‘s statement was at least an embarassing faux pas, regardless of whether it was illegal or not. It‘s something that is simply not done in this country.

I don‘t blame Mr. Auster for not knowing and not understanding the customs of a foreign country, I just think he should be reluctant to judge what he doesn‘t understand.

Up until now, this has been just a minor disagreement between most Germans on the one hand and most Americans on the other. Given the irrelevance of what we are talking about, it is all the more dismaying that Auster seizes this opportunity to trigger an avalanche of hate and prejudice against Germany, beginning with

And by the way, why are we keeping 50,000 U.S. troops, at a cost of billions a year, in that dead land? For what purpose, other than feeding their economy, which happens to be the largest in Europe?

Well, they are not here to protect Germany from invasions. Indeed, we are invaded, as any European nation is, but the U.S. is the last country who would like to protect us from that – we will pick up this point below. The U.S. have bases in Germany because U.S. forces in the Middle East are supplied from here (and kidnapped persons are distributed from here to secret CIA jails around the globe).

Just think, if the anti-Hitler plotters in 1944 had succeeded in killing him, and if some German leader had expressed his joy, this German judge, if translated back to 1944, would seek to punish him. I guess Germany hasn’t changed so much after all, hmm? Pure liberalism, which the Germans in their humorless fanatical thoroughness aspire to as the opposite of Nazi totalitarianism, is another form of totalitarianism. And in the same way, as I have often remarked, the German-championed transnational opposite of the Nazi nationalism which sought to destroy the nations of Europe, is also destroying the nations of Europe. One way or another, whether in their Nazi form or in their hyper-liberal form, the Germans pose a determined threat to the nations and peoples of the West. To paraphrase Churchill’s famous remark about the Germans, they need to be kept at our feet, or else they will go for our throat.

And he adds

I am not being extreme or „anti-German“ when I say that.

which indeed shows that he doesn‘t share German humourlessness.

The Germans agree with me. They see themselves as a threat to others. That’s why they say that the EU is necessary, to keep them, the ever-threatening Germans, in check.

Many Germans are speaking so, because they were told to speak and think such things. They were taught to consider thousand years of German history just as a pre-history of Hitler. They were taught to regard their history as merely a history of crimes. They were taught that they are a danger to others. They were taught that patriotism and „nationalism“ are the same thing, and that the latter is the root of all evils in the world. They were taught to hate themselves.

It started with the re-education from 1945 on, and this re-education is still going on. To poison an entire nation with self-hatred turned out to be a working concept, and this concept, once successfully applied, was generalized to the Western world as a whole, and as the concept of „white guilt“  is now undermining our civilization. This is nothing you should blame the Germans for. They were just the guinea pigs.

The million-dollar-question is: Why is this done, and who does so?

Mr. Auster may not understand much about Germany, but he has quite correctly understood that we don‘t share the feelings of triumph on Bin Laden‘s death – not due to appeasement, or liberalism, or decadence, and not only due to a special German concept of decence described above. It may be shocking to some, but even militant counterjihadists like me don‘t share it.

Yes, Bin Laden was our enemy, but on the list of our enemies he was not number one, and even not number ten. Islam is marching forward in Europe not by terrorism, but by immigration and ethnic struggle, with strong support from the international political elites. It makes no sense to assert a difference between American and European elites, because they all belong to a transatlantic network centered in, but not confined to, America. Within this network, strategies are made compatible with each other, so that there is no such thing as a strictly national policy. There are disagreements on minor questions, but the general direction is towards establishing a global uniform civilization. The EU is part of this process, and an analyst blaming just Germany for that, as Auster does,

The problem is that the German-led EU which in the German mind is aimed at suppressing the German nation, must suppress all other European nations as well. This is why, just as German nationalism could not be allowed to rule Europe, German anti-nationalism also cannot be allowed to rule Europe. Germany must not rule, period.

proves that his hatred of a particular country is stronger than his analytical capabilities.

Why is the leading power in the „war on terror“ at the same time urging France to open herself to islamic infiltration and secretly fostering this infiltation, as we know by Wikileaks (and there is no reason to assume that the same strategy is not applied to other European countries)? Why is the European power most passionately joining this war – Great Britain – at the same time and with the same passion engaging in its self-Islamization? Why are the Anglo-Saxon powers, while at war with more than one Islamic country, urging Europe to enlarge the European Union more and more, predictably with the result that Turkey and North Africa will join the club, thereby opening Europe to a flood of Muslim immigrants?

The obvious answer is that westernization of the Islamic world and islamization of the Western world are two sides of the same coin.

Establishing a global uniform civilization requires the destruction of traditional patterns of values and loyalties. Nations, religions, traditions enable people to express solidarity with each other; they are a the natural enemies of any tyranny. Globalism means to dissolve these ties that hold society together, making men mere perfect consumers and members of the labour force, subject to a global system of supranational institutions responsible to nobody. Such a system of global mobility of capital and labour, i.e. a global market economy, tends to anarchy on the micro level, thereby requiring further empowerment of the supranational level to enforce a peace the individual states are no longer able to preserve.

This is what the political classes of all western countries, including the United States, are working for. The Muslims with their jihad ambition, and the Left with its childish multicultural utopia are just seen as useful auxiliary forces, which is the reason why they are given their head.

This is behind the slogans of spreading „democracy“, and „liberty“, and „good governance“ and so on; and this is behind the phrases of „cultural enrichment“, „tolerance“, „welcome culture“ and so on. It is probable that the responsible believe in what they say. They probably really believe that they work for a system of peace and freedom. Unfortunately, this demands that opponents are not only enemies, but devils, seemingly working for war and tyranny. The utopian concept of „one world“ implies a hyper-morality and entails the de-humanizing of the enemy.

Labelling opposing countries „rogue states“ means: not to abide with established legal standards with respect to these countries. As my own country has twice been declared a rogue state in the last century, I know what I am talking about, and seeing how easily even a mere opinion poll provokes pure anti-German ethnic hatred among Americans (I think Auster‘s attitude is representative), it isn‘t hard to imagine what the reaction would be if Germany seriously fought Islamization. Even conservatives like Auster, I suppose, wouldn‘t stand by our side.

Torturing so-called terrorists in Guantanamo and elsewhere is not an exception from the rule due to irrefutable requirements of national security (by the way: if it was necessary to examine Bin Laden‘s driver, why was it not necessary to examine Bin Laden himself?), and throwing Bin Laden‘s corpse into the sea is the consequence of this de-humanization. At the same time, it is a warning to any opponent of the new world order, f.e. for counterjihadists, that they have no chance of being treated according to civilized democratic standards if their opposition becomes too strong.

What they do today with Bin Laden is what they did yesterday with German generals, and what they will do tomorrow with anyone fighting their utopia. That‘s why I don‘t celebrate Bin Laden‘s death.

46 Kommentare zu „From a German Point of View: a Reply to Lawrence Auster“

  • Thank you very much for this excellent reply to the astonishing expression of hatred by Mr. Auster. It is so complete that I have nothing to add. Feeling defenceless sometimes when reading or listening to similar anti German attacks, I am quite fond about this new project! The fact that the reeducation of the Germans at the same time has been a bad education for the English speaking world may be an excuse for Mr. Auster and his like. I hope they read carefully.

    Congratulations and good luck for the new project!

  • Starting this blog is an excellent idea, Manfred, because there simply are too many topics and instances where opinions even in conservative circles here and across the Atlantic diverge due to the unique historic background and socializations both sides have gotten. Which reminds me that I stopped translating your „Wippermann“ article because I found it really hard to explain the whole situation to an anglophone readership…

    Either way, I’ve placed a link to „German Views“ and gave you a little shout-out.

  • Not sure whether to quote this in its full lengths… cut it down if you think that’s better, Manfred.

    Well, here’s the first „blogospheric“ response to what you’ve written in the article above.
    http://mnprager.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/crippled-germany-explained-by-crippled-2011-leftwing-german-thinking/

    „I wonder what this German conservative would be writing if the United States withdrew interest from Europe immediately following V-E day in May, 1945. No Marshall Plan…..no concern over Stalinist expansion of the Stalinist terror throughout the entire Reich instead of the just the East. Would this Manfred Kleine Hartlage be writing anything on the internet with the German Democratic Republic, Joseph Stalin variety in its ancestry? Would their be any internet allowed?

    I have been in Germany in the early 1990s when East Germany was a third world territory of Soviet spread pestilence rather than the vibrant Federal West Germany saved by American occupation and American sacrifice.

    It is obvious by Kleine-Hartlage’s interpretations that Germany still is in self awareness trouble. His nonsense is indeed a national disease which is likely to kill it as a western oriented nation and return it to a new Islamic naziism.

    Defending of ones ideals successfully depends upon whether or not a society can understand reality in life, not a dream…..especially a delusional dream. Defending the good usually includes contradictions and conflicts.

    Let us remember why Americans, including me, have been celebrating the Death of Osama bin Laden. Unlike these conservative European Marxists, most Americans still believe there is a difference between good and evil. I have no doubt that Osama believed there is a difference as well.

    I prefer my views of good and evil over Mr. Obama’s and those of his fellow primitives teaching the benefits of 72 virgins in heaven awaiting each Islam male martyr who is supposed to kill me and my friends. Sorry….but this view shouldn’t be too complicated for even today’s wimpy Germans to understand.

    But it is tough for these Germans who have not yet discovered reality in the world after years of foreign occupation.

    And remember Germans did give us Karl Marx someone who would cheer this German message by Manfred. You will be forever occupied, you Germans, if you have nothing to defend worth fighting for and with nothing but words to complain to express your ‘self esteem’.“

    I’m not sure if he even understood what you said, Manfred.

  • Sagunto:

    [also posted on GoV]

    This is a valuable discussion as indeed, Mr. Auster seems to suffer from some fair measure of Teutophobia 😉

    Weakest points in the discussion:

    Says Herr Kleine-Hartlage

    „Such a system of global mobility of capital and labour, i.e. a global market economy, tends towards anarchy on the micro level.“

    Global governance – regardless of the i.m.o. quite useless argument over whether this is some „conspiracy“ or not – has very little to do with a true free market economy. The latter thrives with radical decentralization not a concentration of power into the hands of a few.

    Dixit Mr. Auster:

    „why are we keeping 50,000 U.S. troops, at a cost of billions a year, in that dead land? For what purpose, other than feeding their economy [..]?

    „Feeding“ an economy, as in „(govt.) spend and thrive“. That’s silly, especially considering the current economic crisis that has been prolonged by the very same adage.

    Furthermore, I’d like Mr. Auster to explain and answer the justified questions posed by Mr. Kleine-Hartlage:

    „Why is the leading power in the “war on terror” at the same time urging France to open herself to Islamic infiltration and secretly fostering this infiltration, as we know by Wikileaks [..] Why is the European power most passionately joining this war — Great Britain — at the same time and with the same passion engaging in self-Islamization? Why are the Anglo-Saxon powers, while at war with more than one Islamic country, urging Europe to enlarge the European Union more and more, predictably with the result that Turkey and North Africa will join the club, thereby opening Europe to a flood of Muslim immigrants?“

    My own „brusque“ answer would be that this so-called „War on Terror“ is an integral part of the process of Islamization, precisely because it reinforces – with shock and awe (and PC), the powerful meme of „a tiny minority of extremists“, while doing nothing to prevent the influx (flood, tsunami) of Muslim occupiers settling in our countries (also think of ludicrous airport „security“ while at the same time restyling the US-Mexican border into some sort of Swiss cheese).

    On the other hand, fake classical liberalism, i.e. progressive political Americanism, is the „riddle inside an enigma“ for Mr. Kleine-Hartlage, or so it seems. While his questioning of an agenda encouraging Western nations to „welcome“ floods of Muslims – one catastrophe after another – is certainly warranted, I am in serious doubt whether he truly understands the economic basis of his envisioned New World Order.

    Kind regs from Amsterdam,
    Sag.

  • Manfred, as far as I am concerned I can’t find any redeeming value in the German tradition of ethical bellyaching. To me, the current public discourse resembles the old theological argument of how many angels can dance on a pinpoint.

    Or the discussion whether it was allowed to have the kidnapper of little Jacob von Metzler THREATENED with torture to save the life of the child.

    But then, to me, the Kreisau circle was a bunch of idiots who bellyached about tyrannicide until only a man with three fingers left on his one hand was left to do the job.

    But then too, I consider my father, whom I loved to bits, a weakling because he was, in April or May 1945 (not sure when the war was exactly over in those nicks of the wood), seconded by the Americans to guard a high-ranking Nazi and given a gun. I consider him a weakling because he did NOT kill the man, because he, with his inbred warped German conscience, knew he would be tormented by the man’s eyes for the rest of his life. He did it (or rather not) for HIMSELF. Ethical cowardice in my book

    However, that doesn’t mean that your essay is NOT an excellent summary of German post-WWII history. Just let’s hope that Mr. Auster will not see it, because then you’ll be left craving for an interesting, reasonable, fruitful and sane debate about how many angels can dance on a pinpoint.

    • But then too, I consider my father, whom I loved to bits, a weakling because he was, in April or May 1945 (not sure when the war was exactly over in those nicks of the wood), seconded by the Americans to guard a high-ranking Nazi and given a gun. I consider him a weakling because he did NOT kill the man, because he, with his inbred warped German conscience, knew he would be tormented by the man’s eyes for the rest of his life. He did it (or rather not) for HIMSELF. Ethical cowardice in my book

      You are contemptuous of your own father because he was not prepared to become a murderer???

      Why do you think didn’t the Americans kill the „high ranking Nazi“ themselves – after all he was their, not your father’s, enemy? They knew it would have been murder, and they didn’t want to be held responsible.

      Even killing Hitler would have been justified only as an act of national self-defense in emergency, not as an act of revenge.

  • WB sez: „Which reminds me that I stopped translating your “Wippermann” article because I found it really hard to explain the whole situation to an anglophone readership…“

    That’s one of the reasons why I have hardly updated my English language blog since Christmas.

  • Sagunto:

    Warblogger –

    You wrote:

    „It is obvious by Kleine-Hartlage’s interpretations that Germany still is in self awareness trouble.“

    Same goes for your interpretation, pertaining to the role of (post-Wilsonian, progressivist) America as „liberator“ (now the US is „liberating“ Libya, yesterday they were „liberating“ Bosnia, see the point?).
    And for sure, you are absolutely right about the Allied forces, saving Western-Europe from Stalin, but the other side of the story is that political Americanism and post-war US cultural hegemony (not representing true conservative American people) brought mind-numbing Political Correctness to Europe, besides the push for creating Islamic states within Europe and Islamic states joining the EUssr.

    Allow me to recommend the following thread on Baron Bodissey’s (and Dymphna’s, of course 😉 wonderful Blog, The Gates of Vienna, with special interest for the comments by a fellow named „Conservative Swede“, on what he calls the „therapeutic babbling“ of some Americans on this issue.

    Kind regs from Amsterdam,
    Sag.

  • @ Sagunto

    What you commented on were not my writings but those from the link I posted. Nothing in the whole section placed in „…“ was written by me or is endorsed by me. It was provided by me as the first actual „Blog“ reaction to Manfred’s piece.

  • Auster wrote:

    „Of course I would welcome a conservative Germany. For example, back in the early Nineties, with the civil wars going on in the former Yugoslavia, my feeling was that in a normal world, instead of some UN or other international body of „peacekeepers“ getting involved and making things worse, the nearest major power, in this case Germany, would take a leading role and restore order. That’s what major powers do. When their less orderly neighbors get messed up, the major power steps in and restores order. Unfortunately such a normal, i.e., conservative, Germany (neither hyper-nationalist nor hyper-liberal) didn’t exist then or now.“

    Oh, please. As if the United States wouldn’t be among the first ones to gang up against such a „conservative“ Germany. I really don’t get what the man wants, and he probably doesn’t know that himself. He wants Germany as a subservient and introverted nation (because otherwise it’s apparently our natural impulse to go and dominate Europe) while at the same time wanting us to act like the major power the main indices declare us to be. What is it? You can’t subject us to decades of re-education and then demand us to act as an ally of the US militarily AND act as a regional, stabilizing hegemon. In becoming what we are now, American influence was instrumental. We are, to a large degree, America’s „product“. So, sorry, in real life, you cannot have your cake and eat it, too. Deal with it.

  • @ Editrix

    Indeed. Explaining the „Eva Hermann“ situation to my readership would probably have necessitated a number of blog post on their own just to get the importance across, and I was left with weighing that against the actual topic of my blog. Well, Hermann lost.

  • Sagunto:

    War Blogger –

    Sorry, my bad.
    To my surprise, I see that the comment was written by the Baron himself. Hmm, will repost my reaction on GoV as well. Us self-understanding true to historical facts is as important as German self-understanding..

    Thnx for the correction, WB.

    Sag.

  • […] die Äußerungen eines gewissen Lawrence Auster, dem Manfred Kleine-Hartlage in einer lesenswerten Replik auf Englisch Antwort steht (Übersezung hier). Ich glaube nicht, dass Herr Auster repräsentativ […]

  • Mantelrochen:

    Oh the Editrix gives an antgerman statement.

    Who would have thought that?

  • @ Sagunto

    No, it was posted by by Glenn H. Ray and not the Baron.

  • JV:

    Thank you for this blog. If there were more such projects, fewer people would fall for the kind of divisive and hateful propaganda Lawrence Auster and his ilk produce.

    One criticism: One shouldn’t give Auster too much credit. He doesn’t speak for America. He has his own agenda. In the part of the blogosphere that knows of his existence there are lots of critical voices. It’s not America vs. Germany (or Europe). If the debate is framed in this way, Auster has achieved his goal. A Lawrence Auster isn’t America. Of course he isn’t alone with his opinion (we all know about the power of the media) but the last thing we should do is to reinforce the impression that they are, in the end, right. („They are totally different from us, they don’t like us, we shouldn’t be interested in them“ etc.) There are certain people who want Americans to hate or at least despise Europe or at the very least not feel any emotional connection to the countries of their ancestors. We shouldn’t indirectly help them. More real American patriots, more real European patriots, less Austers, Krauthammers etc., less self-hating Germans (whether in the Ströbele or in the „Editrix“ version).

    • It’s not America vs. Germany (or Europe). If the debate is framed in this way, Auster has achieved his goal. A Lawrence Auster isn’t America.

      I hope so. Nevertheless, it is characteristic that he is able to articulate his anti-German resentment without any proof. Obviously, he believes the public he is addressing is sharing his views and prejudices, and I am afraid he is right.

      The problem – and the reason why I started this blog – is the dominance of the Anglo-Saxon narrative on Germany. People all over the world simply don’t know how the world looks like from a German point of view, and this means that anti-German hatred can be mobilized easily any time it seems useful. To us, this is a sword of Damocles.

      • GermanBeta:

        It seems whenever Germany or Germans is concerned, many Americans, not only of the liberal, but also, or particularly, the „conservative“ and moderate right varieties, immediately drop all rationality and fall back to expression of pure hatred. Difficult to explain, but probably the product of decades of vilification of all things German in the US culture, from the time of WW1 on.

        And I for one am quite satisfied that building a ragtag mob of ecstatic flag wavers celebrating that our overlords have managed, after spending many years and untold billions to invade more countries, to finish off some relatively minor, (if admittedly despicable) figure among their enemies, so they can again spend all their energy on their globalist agenda, does not belong to our „values“ in Germany. But that a little bit of decency or good taste still does.

        Mr. Kleine-Hartlage, please continue your very good work. We need more people like you.

  • Sagunto:

    I stand corrected WB, again..

    Well Glenn, the above comment by yours (silly) truly, was not directed at WB, nor at the Baron, but at you.

    Yours shamefully,
    Sag.

  • MnMark:

    I think the crux of this seeming disagreement between American conservatives like Auster and German conservatives is over the precise language and meaning of the question in the poll.

    The author here asserts that the poll only asked whether people should „celebrate“ bin Laden’s death, not whether they thought it was „good“ that he was dead. The author wants to claim that the 64% saying the death should not be „celebrated“ is not indicating that 64% don’t think it’s „good“ that bin Laden is dead.

    If the poll was made in response to videos of Americans celebrating their military’s success in finding bin Laden and killing him, and the 64% were simply saying that they didn’t think the celebrating was appropriate, that’s fine. But if the poll was taken before these scenes of American’s joy were broadcast and was simply measuring how happy Germans are that bin Laden is gone, then that’s a different matter.

    We Americans have waited ten years to see that man caught. We are proud of our highly skilled special forces and proud that they tracked him down. Since it was very reasonable to think that the had no intention of being taken alive, there was a good chance he was wearing a suicide vest and it was important to kill him with a head shot immediately on seeing him to prevent our troops from being injured. The mission was a complete success. It makes us Americans feel relieved and proud that our nation can produce such highly skilled soldiers that can execute such a mission so efficiently.

    But I think the rest of the world has developed a quite negative narrative about American military power over the last fifty years. The rest of the world thinks the American military is bad, reckless, immoral. They – especially Europeans – seem to think we take too much intiative instead of properly submitting to guidance by the United Nations. And so I think that they do not like to see instances of highly effective American military power, especially where the sovereignty of a nation (even if a semi-criminal, semi-enemy nation like Pakistan) is violated. It stirs negative feelings in them. So they find it hard to be happy that the Americans had success and killed the mass murderer behind the 9/11 and other attacks.

    To Americans like me this smacks of envy more than anything else. Resentment and envy of the stronger „Other“ – America, in this case. They think Americans are boastful and rude and boorish and they don’t follow nice United Nations rules. So when we see a poll that says 64% of Germans don’t want to celebrate the death of bin Laden and news that their leader is going to be prosecuted simply for saying she is happy that bin Laden is dead, it confirms our beliefs about what Europeans think of us. That they are not really on our side in their hearts. That they dislike and resent us. That even in our moment of triumph over an enemy that murdered thousands of our people, they can’t bring themselves to agree that it is something to be happy about.

    So please don’t make out like this misunderstanding, if it is a misunderstanding, is somehow the fault of Americans. We are simply happy for the success of our warriors in killing a war-crime committing enemy. There is nothing to apologize for in that.

    • We Americans have waited ten years to see that man caught. We are proud of our highly skilled special forces and proud that they tracked him down.

      I think there is nobody who wouldn’t understand this. Nevertheless, I regret that the responsibility for the 9/11 attacks will never be cleared up in a fair, public, and transparent trial. (What, for example, did the Pakistani secret service know in advance, and – more important – did anybody within the American administration and security agencies know what would happen? A trial could have led to the result that all the conspiracy theories around 9/11 are wrong – or not.)

      But I think the rest of the world has developed a quite negative narrative about American military power over the last fifty years. The rest of the world thinks the American military is bad, reckless, immoral. They – especially Europeans – seem to think we take too much intiative instead of properly submitting to guidance by the United Nations.

      Well, the United Nations were an American inventions, and America herself asks other nations to obey the UN. What raises animosity is that America uses double standards. But yes, it would be too simple to say that this is the only cause of anti-American resentment. And yes you are right when you say

      To Americans like me this smacks of envy more than anything else.

      Resentment of America has many sources, and not all of them are clean, from the snobbish cultural arrogance of the French to the pseudomoralistic attitude of German Leftists to sheer envy anywhere in the world.

      I think my own mind to be free from feelings of that kind. What I am interested in is: Why is our civilization deliberately (?), in any case systematically, destroyed, and who is responsible for that? I think that there is a transnational elite’s network (which is not the same thing as a conspiracy) dedicated to realizing an utopia, and that America’s power is abused by the American faction of this network against the interest of the American nation herself.

  • „an antgerman statement“

    What’s that?

  • I don’t think Americans being happy about the death of OBL was ever the problem in this discussion. I for my part can very much understand that sentiment. To point, however, is that in Manfred’s, mine, and (*shudders*) Angela Merkel’s culture it is simply something very indecent to actually celebrate someone’s death – even that of OBL. There certainly are a fair share of people in Germany who are happy the bastard is dead, but nobody in their right mind here would pick up a flag and go wave it in the streets in celebration of that fact.

  • Didn’t you know, Editrix? You’re the queen bee, the hive mother! Hence, an „antgerman“ statement!

    • WB sez: „You’re the queen bee, the hive mother!“

      I hate to come across as petty, but wouldn’t that be a „beegerman“ statement? I like that word. It sounds almost like „beergarden“.

      Btw about one of your earlier comments: Yes Eva Herman is an excellent example for what I mean. To explain a phenomenon like that with all implications would require several excurses and one could as well write a book.

  • Sagunto:

    MnMark –

    wrote:

    „So when we see [..] their leader is going to be prosecuted simply for saying she is happy that bin Laden is dead, it confirms our beliefs about what Europeans think of us. That they are not really on our side in their hearts.“

    I’d like for her to undergo just a tiny part of the Wilders-experience. She would be prosecuted by the very system she subscribes to, when spreading hatred against Geert Wilders. So this really is a side-issue. Merkel is completely on the US progressivist „Islam is a ROP“-ticket. She has done nothing to resist the Islamization of her country as neither have all of the US political establishment.
    This „War on Terror“ (not Islam, no no, let’s not mention Islam) is, quite regrettably, part of Islamization, not the solution.

    May I refer you to the link I provided earlier, on GoV, with special attention for the comments by Conservative Swede about US „therapeutic babbling“?

    Kind regs from Amsterdam,
    Sag.

  • Manfred, War Blogger, et alia —

    I, too, find public celebrations of an individual’s death to be, well, unseemly. This has nothing to do with my personal feelings about Osama bin Laden, nor does it detract in the slightest from my glee at his demise.

    Not all Americans would approve of that sort of public festivity. I’m not sure where the cultural faultlines about the issue run — between the Saxons and the Celts? Between Northern and Southern European traditions? But the tendency is not universal here in the USA.

    I’m about one-eighth German, so that’s probably not enough to explain it. I don’t know what the explanation is.

  • Mantelrochen:

    LOL

    That was supposed to mean:“an anti-German statement”

  • http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/019301.html

    Here we go again. *sighs* Greg, in the unlikely case you read this: the point is that she should’ve done what every other German chancellor in the same situation has done before her, which is to keep her trap shut. That way she would’ve been on the safe side, politically.

  • Rosalie:

    It seems that it’s practically impossible for the Americans – even the most lucid among them – to grasp that they didn’t „liberate“ Germany; they OCCUPIED it. The whole continent of Europe is now under American hegemony and the EU is created and shaped after the American model.

    Besides, in the heart of every American, even the so-called „conservatives“, any return to conservatism in Europe would be perceived as evil, since European conservatism will be inevitably linked to ethnicity.

    Bin Laden’s death was not celebrated in America as the death of a representative of Islam, which he is, but as the death of an enemy of the liberal, universalist American order. If tommorrow Germany (or any other European nation) re-asserts itself, it will probably be kept in line by USA by any means, including some Serbian-style bombing; and expect the same crowds who cheered Bin Laden’s dissapearance to invade the streets, chanting „USA, USA“, rejoicing at the thought that „democracy“ and „freedom“ have won again and those wicked „European fascists“ have been crushed.

    • JV:

      Excellent article.

      That’s what I meant. Don’t do him a favour by giving him the opportunity to portray himself as someone who speaks for America or is a representative of the Anglo-Saxon world. Lawrence Auster, great American, defender of America against German Osama lovers – he’d like people to see him as something like that. Attack him where it hurts. He isn’t pro-American. He’s just pro-Golem. The second Americans wake up and really take their country back – in any other way than the one he would allow them to – guess what happens to his „patriotism.“

  • The Quadfather:

    As an American,I have always understood that in the bombing of Serbia that we were fighting on the wrong side. We have a faction in our country, the Democrats, that when they come to power, you can expect that. They are traitorous to the real America, to our founding principles. The other faction, the Republicans are better, but far from perfect. The new faction, the Tea party, is our only real hope, and is working to take over the Republican party. It always struck me as odd that while Nazi-ism is villified by our left, Marxism is not. But they are two sides of the same coin, as Stalin admitted himself. But the true reason the American left won’t villify marxism, is that their movement grew out of soviet style marxism. But they are one and the same, and they must be defeated. Oh how the left have howled about the rise of the Tea Party and how they are full of contempt of it. We are aware of the globalists pulling the strings and work against them at every turn.

  • Nevertheless, it is characteristic that he [Auster] is able to articulate his anti-German resentment without any proof. Obviously, he believes the public he is addressing is sharing his views and prejudices, and I am afraid he is right.

    Manfred, as per Tanstaafl’s post, Auster is first and foremost a Jew and that is where his first and foremost allegiances apply. Likewise his commentariat are mostly Jewish. Auster is not Anglo-Saxon, though he did convert to High Church Anglicanism, with his former ethnic and religious allegiance fully in tact and dominant. Read him with that understanding and you will begin to understand the premises of his points of view. For example, he is pro-Wilders even though Wilders represents most of those things a conservative and traditionalist, that Auster describes himself as, would actively oppose. The reason Auster does so is because Wilders is pro-Israel and vehemntly opposed to Islam. Those are the only criteria of Wilders that Auster agrees with, and they are fundamental to any agreement with Auster.

    Auster is not representative of America from what I know of Americans but rather he is representative of Judeo-Aemrica. The sort of America that interferes with all nations as you have described with particular reference to Judeo-American interference with France.

    Gates of Vienna is similar, though they are not Jews but anglophiles with a pro-Israeli/Zionist bent. Politically they are what are termed neo-conservatives: socially left wing, economically free market absolutists with a staunch Israel/Zion obsequiousness.

    Germany is opposed whenever they do not fully submit to Israel firstism, which in this instance is to not joyously celebrate the death of Osama bin Laden. Germany’s instructions are all our instructions from Judeo-America: invade the world, invite the world. Nationalism for no none, nationalism for Israel.

    I hope this helps.

    • What you and the other American commenters write is encouraging, though I suppose it wouldn’t be really diffcult to make a devil of Germany if the media wanted to. Anti-German stereotypes were mobilized even during World War I, when Americans had no reason to hate Germany. It would be the more easy today.

      By the way: I am a supporter of Israel, too, for the same reasons why I would support any Western nation if it was threatened, and I am a supporter of Wilders, despite his liberal approach to some matters. In Germany, where parties critical of Islam and Immigration get just 1 or 2 percent of the votes, we envy the Dutch for Wilders, although some points of his agenda are rather short-sighted. I don’t know whether it is tactics that Wilders focuses on Islam rather than immigration, but if it is, it is smart.

  • DW:

    It will be interesting to see if this anti-German hate rhetoric is just the start of a broader campaign against the Germans? I heard Fox News’s Glenn Beck stirring anti-German conspiracies about a month ago on his show.

    There are elements within „Anglo-America“ who greatly fear an independent Germany. These people would much prefer a Germany that just goes along with the globalist program. In fact, the biggest competition for the Anglo-American globalists are the Germans. They (Anglo-American globalist elite) don’t care much for the Russians either but direct their heaviest hate towards the Germans. Mr. Auster works within the narrative-creating apparatus of the Anglo-American elite. His job is to spread memes, shape arguments, provide assumptions, and maintain a narrative that benefits this Anglo-American elite.

    Of course he does believe what he’s saying. He does have an inner hate for Germans for reasons beyond self-interest. So don’t think he’s just in it for the money or status. They use him for this job particularly because he IS „GOOD“ at German hating! His job in this case is to use the rhetoric of dehumanization and domination against a people that his bosses fear.

    And it’s such a waste of time! America should be moving closer to Germany at this point in history. Germany is experiencing many of the same issues that America faces (energy, immigration, birth rates). What if instead of middle east energy wars we (The US) and the Germans allocated resources together and worked to develop new forms of energy? Or labor saving technologies? Why not explore space together? Send more exchange students? We (Americans) can learn about modern manufacturing from the Germans.

    • DW, do you have a link on that comment w/regards to Glenn Beck?

      • DW:

        I heard him say it on his show. He tied some problems occurring in the world to Germany in an insinuating manner. He spoke with innuendos and warned the audience to „remember Germany,“ meaning that something bad in the future will be tied to Germany.

        Fox News as a channel is very anti-Europe and some of their programming is intended to program white middle class people on the American Right to perceive Europe as an enemy (Godless progressives). They try very hard to deny a common Western heritage between Europe and America.

        American right-wingers are instead supposed to feel solidarity with the Israelis. Newt Gingrich is another European basher who „reminds“ Americans how different „we“ are from the progressive-socialist, decedent, Godless Europeans.

    • The Quadfather:

      We have explored space together. The American space program is the german rocket program of world war II. We just extended it and pacified it. But we couldn’t have done it so quick without all the german scientists that came over here to help.

  • i had a few thoughts on auster’s comments. published them here.

    great idea for a blog, „german views“ in english! look forward to reading more. (^_^)

  • RS:

    Dislike of Auster is… Well, as far as I can recall, Auster does get after people sometimes for alleged blanket prejudice against Jewry – inter alia. Whatever. Auster is one of about three Ashkenazim in the entire world of Anglophone dissidents who state that Jewish-Gentile conflict was a two-way street in the past, and still is. I’m baffled as to why people give him no credit for this extremely distinctive fact, even if he is a temperamental fellow. Hell, so am I in some degree.

    The fact that Auster says the NS guilt cult should be dropped is no doubt directly related to the fact that he definitely sees substantial truth in ‚200 Years Together‘, and the like, and understands what was weighing on the German electorate in ’33. He probably also understands lots of other stuff like the severe French and American irresponsibility regarding gold. Believe me when I say, virtually nobody in America, at any level of education short of a PhD on modern Germany, knows any of this context beyond a few token criticisms of Versailles. Do you think his readers – apparently a mix of Jews, and Gentiles who are much more Protestant-trad than ethno-preservationist – would give him any grief if he were to blast away at ‚200 Years‘ with his heaviest artillery? A book which is not available in English, by the way – what an enigma, lol. On the contrary, he would be three times as popular as he is. He says what he says – repeatedly – because it’s true. I absolutely assure you, relative to Americans, and I’m pretty sure relative to Brits as well, he’s at the 99.9th percentile for understanding extra-German causes of ‚German‘ mistakes which I would consider to be as much caused by the rest of the West – yes, including Russian and German Jews, not least – as they were caused by Germany in general. (In their defense, their bolshevist activism was caused partly by earlier Gentile-Jewish conflict of a severe nature.) The top NS get a lot more blame from me than Germany in general, almost the sole error of which was the ’33 vote. One should not be a childlike idealist: at that point the ability to moderate or get rid of the top NS by peaceful means began to decline rapidly – one could ask the bones of Edgar Julius Jung about that. I wouldn’t certainly wouldn’t attack Muscovites for not running amok to stop the Red Terror or Holodomor; that would be silly. Sadly, that’s the way it is.

    To me, Auster is a hero of honesty. The man has integrity. We all have our moods – especially him. He’s been as unfair about Sailer at times as he was lately about Germany – of course that had to do with Israel, and I respect the man’s affinity for Israel though I scarcely back such comments. Anyway, I read the man holistically. It’s not really one’s fault if one happens to be uninformed about his total body of opinions, and yet at the same time, one won’t understand him without knowing him more holistically. Without his traits, he wouldn’t be him. He likes being trenchant and boldly honest about what’s in his mind, and his trenchancy does more for good than for ill. He’s a man of very uninhibited expression, but he spreads around his fiery, and no doubt sometimes mistaken, stubbornness with conspicuous integrity. So, of course criticize his stuff – always. I’ll probably do so myself at some point, but I’ll be sure to give him respect. For maximum effectiveness, he should probably tone himself down a little – but if he doesn’t, I’ll continue to respect him anyway.

  • Rosalie:

    „Auster is one of about three Ashkenazim in the entire world of Anglophone dissidents who state that Jewish-Gentile conflict was a two-way street in the past, and still is.“

    Can you give an example (one single example) where Auster said that in the past the Jewish-Gentile conflict was a two-way street?

  • Well, apparently Auster does not intend to actually ever answer Manfred’s article. Of course, DSK’s sex affairs are a much easier topic…