Archive
Categories

Archiv für die Kategorie „Germany“

Euro Crisis: „A Flood of Inflation“

[Original title: „Prof. Markus Kerber zur Eurokrise: ‚Ein Schwall von Inflation‘„, in korrektheiten.com, January 14, 2012. Translation by MKH]

The Deutschlandfunk (DLF, a public German radio station) has aired, Friday night, an interview with Professor Markus Kerber. Kerber is an economist at the Technische Universität Berlin. He conducts research on public finance and economic policy. The occasion was the downgrading of the creditworthiness of France from AAA to AA + by the rating agency Standard & Poors. It was about the impact on the Euro. Kerber was speaking in plain language. He said among other things:

In total, Germany can try in this situation only one thing: withdraw from the Euro rescue fund – at least from the Euro rescue fund – to secure its rating and to save [herself]. Otherwise, in the near future the conclusions from Germany’s liability-causing situation will have to be drawn. Germany will have to be liable for all, and this necessarily leads to a serious downgrade. The bailout funds …

Question: That means, if I understand you correctly, that the bailout fund has now become history?

This is the beginning of the end of the bailout. Due to the liability of France, at least in the medium term the bailout fund cannot obtain financing on the terms that are necessary to fund the financially distressed countries.

Question: But is the situation so explosive, can we assume that interest rates now are going to rise dramatically in the countries that have been downgraded?

This depends on whether in these countries a radical austerity is now announced and carried out. So far we have just a declaratory policy. But even if it were announced, it would actually have to be implemented. We are in the maelstrom of a pan-European financial crisis, and Germany can escape this maelstrom only by escaping quickly from the Euro rescue fund, and by making clear that she is no longer prepared to take the liability and responsibility for the stabilization of the completely rotten states. Finally, the taboo has to be broken that the Euro zone is viable as such; Germany needs today more than ever a plan B to abruptly leave the Euro zone, together with the other trade surplus countries like the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Finland and Austria.

Question: You are speaking clearly as a Euro skeptic. How will the ECB, the European Central Bank …

… not a Euro skeptic, but a pro-European. Those who don’t want Europe, European integration and the European single market to be longer burdened with the religion-like Euro project, have to draw conclusions from the actual situation: conclusions that politicians are not ready to draw, because they are responsible for this policy and the current situation.

Question: But how will the ECB, the European Central Bank respond? Are you worried that they will start the printing press?

This is already under way: Mr. Draghi has, on the one hand, declared that the European Central Bank cannot run fiscal policy through bond purchases, but the ECB has, on the other hand, facilitated the security requirements for the refinancing of banks in a way that banks in the Euro area now can submit ANY paper to refinance. This is somewhat simplified, but it’s true in the trend. The result: Of the 489 billion € banks have retrieved, Italian banks alone have retrieved 116 billion. But the call to use the ECB as fiscal firefighters will even become louder, and this means, economically, exactly what you have just said: that the printing press is started, and then, after a delay, a flood of inflation will swamp us.

[Questions asked by Oliver Ramme. The interview is available on the following URL for some time: http://ondemand-mp3.dradio.de/file/dradio/2012/01/13/dlf_20120113_2315_1784255d.mp3]

Germany Attempts to Silence Criticism of Islam

by Soeren Kern

[Though this article is not drawn from the German blogosphere, it provides correct information on the situation of the counterjihad movement in Germany. Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the mainstream conservative Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos, Madrid.] 

German authorities have officially confirmed that they are monitoring German-language Internet websites that are critical of Muslim immigration and the Islamization of Europe.

According to Manfred Murck, director of the Hamburg branch of the German domestic intelligence agency, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV), his organization is studying whether German citizens who criticize Muslims and Islam on the Internet are fomenting hate and are thus criminally guilty of „breaching“ the German constitution.

The BfV’s move marks a significant setback for the exercise of free speech in Germany and comes amid a months-long smear campaign led by a triple alliance of leftwing German multicultural elites, sundry Muslim groups and members of the mainstream media, who have been relentless in their efforts to discredit the so-called counter-jihad movement (also known as the „Islamophobes“) in Germany.

Opinion polls show that growing numbers of ordinary German citizens are worried about the consequences of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged mass immigration from Muslim countries.

Germans are especially concerned about the refusal of millions of Muslim immigrants to integrate into German society, as well as the emergence of a parallel legal system in Germany based on Islamic Sharia law.

In an effort to reverse this tide of public opinion, the guardians of German multiculturalism have been working overtime to regain the initiative by accusing the critics of Islam of engaging in hate speech to try to intimidate the so-called „new right“ into silence. […]

[Read full article on stonegateinstitute.org]

Mass Murderer Napoleon Bonaparte

by Kewil

[Kewil is well known in the German blogosphere as an anti-Left polemicist. The following article, originally dated January 16, 2011, has now been re-published by As der Schwerter. Translation by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage]

Hitherto, military science has not yet drawn a detailed balance of the Napoleonic wars. It is estimated that five million people died, ten million were wounded. Perhaps there were more, maybe less, in any case the numbers would quadruple if one put them into relation to current demographic conditions. The whole continent was hurt by them, and in all classes there was reason to mourn.

What is striking about it is the indifference and persistent glorification of this war criminal, whose picture is still hanging in many French salons. Even more, our red vermin worship him as someone who had brought „Enlightenment“ to Germany and liberated us from the priest – which was manifested by French troops who made the Mainz and Magdeburg Cathedrals horse stables and let their horses shit in the churches of the country. Not to mention millions who had been robbed, subject to forced conscription, raped, deported, slain and wounded, and who would certainly would have liked to avoid this kind of „Enlightenment.“ Long time ago and history?

No, protest! These atrocities are in fact the more shocking, as every day stupid atheists, red Multikultis and Islamic submarines fire outraged salvoes against Christian Crusades, witch burnings and the Inquisition, dating much earlier than Napoleon, but apparently not yet „mere history“ because justifying the permanent and daily denigration of the Church – though the state, not the Church, was responsible for Inquisition as well as witch burnings!

The usual leftist double standards! Colonizers like Lüderitz and Peters or generals like Hindenburg are made unpersons by renaming streets with their name! But Napoleon? A saint of the Left!

Martin Lichtmesz on Germany’s Colonization

Martin Lichtmesz, one of Germany’s best political essayists (whose essays I haven’t translated until now, as his German is so brilliant that you would have to be Shakespeare to translate it in adequate English), has published a new book: „Die Verteidigung des Eigenen“, dealing with the ideology behind Germany’s self-destruction.

I want to give at least a short quotation from it: Having dealt with Frantz Fanon’s criticism of colonization and colonialism, in which the author’s the reference to  his own nègrerie („negroness“), i.e. his awareness of racial identity and its importance for freedom and self-determination plays a major role, Martin draws a parallel to the German situation, to the arrogant attitude of the West and the self-denying masochism of many Germans:

Of course, the German was, since 1945, something like the Negro of Europe, who had to be weaned from his barbarism, to incorporate him into the community of civilized nations, a task which the carriers of the „burden of liberalism“ had borne heroically, as was (and is) their job. We thank them today in Washington and Moscow for the fact that they have slain the dragon, who we once were ourselves. But the forcibly (by Versailles and Dresden) democratized Germans cannot be trusted, for you never know whether, under the cosmopolitan mask, there is still the old black jungle negroe, now simply called a Nazi, who – like once the just seemingly romanized Arminius – is just waiting for the opportunity to pull out his ax again. This provides the practical pretext to keep the nose ring always at hand. The historical consciousness of the Germans is deliberately grouped around their Negro past. The intention is not so much to make them cease to be Negroes and never return to their negroness, but rather to remind them that, due to their latent negroness, they need permanent educational supervision.

Thorsten Hinz: State of Emergency

by Thorsten Hinz

„Ausnahmezustand“, october 16, 2011, jungefreiheit.de

Translation by Google, revised by MKH

The question of the future government practice in Europe, recently raised by Heino Bosselmann, has found a first response with the bailout Act,  approved on 29thSeptember : We are in an undeclared state of emergency! The state of emergency includes the total or partial suspension of civil rights. Having pledged the German welfare state,  the Bundestag has actually suspended our property rights. Moreover, the state of emergency means transferring legislative powers from parliament to the executive (government). The current special feature is that the government is instructed directly by the „financial markets“.

If in case future bailouts the federal government requires a „special urgency“ to be declared, „(…) the participation rights of the Bundestag and the Budget Committee will be exercised by a small commission of Budget Committee members  to be elected by the Bundestag for a legislative period. The number of appointees is the smallest possible allowing  each fraction to nominate at least one member and maintaining the majority ratios. In the case of an emergency measure requiring the purchase of bonds on the secondary market in order to prevent contagion, a particular urgency is regularly to be supposed. “

Budgetary rights shrinking to pro forma competence

De facto, the government has a constant breakthrough right bypassing the Parliament. Its „sovereign right“ – the budgetary right – shrinks to the pro forma competence of  constitutional monarchs. These have the right to be informed , to be heard, to advise, and to warn. But the latter (see the Pofalla-Bosbach controversy) please not too loud! A special committee of nine members shall take the place of the Bundestag. CDU / CSU and SPD are represented by three, FDP, Greens and Left by one representative each. As top officials of the party state they themselves belong to the executive rather than to legislature. They are welded together by the „Operation maintain power.“ Together and with criminal negligence, they have pushed through the disastrous €-concept, now they are united by their interest to obfuscate the disaster and their own responsibility.

The substitute body is much smaller than the „Joint Committee“, which takes over in case of emergency or in a war nuclear bunker as deputy of the Bundestag and Bundesrat. This includes 48 members. In the SED Politburo at least 22 comrades were involved, and a handful of candidates were added. The concentration of power now agreed upon shows how serious the situation is considered!

The Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben, in 2003, published  the writing „State of Emergency“. It was written under the impact of the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, an area of legalized lawlessness. In all Western democracies, he writes, „the official declaration of the state of emergency is increasingly being replaced by an unprecedented expansion of the security paradigm as a normal technique of government“. Supplementing the safety paradigm by the banking paradigm, we have formulated the current and future government technique.

Convulsions of the financial markets decide on the measures

For Carl Schmitt, extensively quoted by Agamben, the state of emergency was actually still an exception. It was imposed if the legal order could no longer be saved by lawful means.  But it remained the reference point and the goal of policy. Agamben goes beyond Schmitt, forecasting an undeclared state of emergency in permanence. The „permanent bailout“ to be established from 2013 confirms the prognosis. The law state needn’t be overridden, it is simply reshaped by the measure state. Previously there were racial or social utopias, which defined the specific measures, now there are the convulsions of the financial markets.

Leafing through the books of the G.D.R. civics lessons, I noted that their caustic remarks about the illusory character of bourgeois democracy and the dependence of the politics on the financial oligarchy may contain much more truth than I ever would have admitted. And I find myself a little bit regretting Erich Honecker: Because he didn’t live long enough to see this happen!

Libya: Action against Sarkozy for „crimes against humanity“ on the way

by Friederike Beck

Original title Libyen: Klage gegen Sarkozy wegen „Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit“ auf dem Weg, published september 26, 2011, on Friederikes Becklog

Translation by Google, revised by MKH

[Friederike Beck is among Germany’s most talented journalists. Her book Das Guttenberg-Dossier (The Guttenberg File), dealing with transatlantic networks of influence, has been issued earlier in this year. She is a regular columnist of the Zeitgeist magazine, a critical magazine for heretics and free-thinkers, challenging established mainstream views.]

Far from the German media spotlight three of the most respected lawyers in France are preparing a complaint for crimes against humanity before French tribunals. They will represent the interests of the victims of the ongoing NATO bombing in Libya. Defendant: Nicolas Sarkozy.

The lawyers are nobody less than former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas, the extremely eloquent Marcel Ceccaldi, and the famous and notorious Michel Vergès.

Dumas is also willing to defend Muammar Gaddafi before the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which has issued an international arrest warrant against the dictator. He said: „If they find him, they will kill him like Bin Laden. Some states now usurp the right to kill – against every international law. “

Attorney Vergès, born in Vietnam and the son of a Vietnamese woman and a Frenchman recalls the application of Agent Orange by U.S. troops during the Vietnam War and the fact that NATO has used for months even warheads containing depleted uranium – a worrying comparison!

The 88-year-old Dumas (foreign minister under Mitterand) was together with Vergès in May in Tripoli. They made ​​contact with the victims and survivors of NATO attacks, of which 30 issued a mandate to the lawyers.

The sharp-tongued Ceccaldi reported that the bombing had hit power, water and other supply facilities and points out: „After five months of daily bombing by NATO and thousands of dead people will stop supporting the regime – simply because they do not stand the situation any longer. “

Ceccaldi submits another interesting aspect : The Western leadershave lost their thread because of the first serious challenge referring to Libya. „If they stop the lawsuits that are brought to court, this will be evidence once and for all that the Western Justice is not ruled by law, but by the politicians -. “

The ICC in The Hague enjoys little prestige outside Europe, since it has so far dealt only with Africans. White offenders à la Tony Blair, George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield are there not an issue.

The French ex-foreign minister stated also that he „was surprised that this (NATO) mission, which had been started to protect civilians, is about to kill them.“ It was described as a „brutal aggression against a sovereign country“ .
Michel Vergès also did not spare criticism, calling the countries of the Atlantic alliance  „murderers“. The „French state“, according to him, „is run by thugs and killers. We will tear down the wall of silence „.

***
The elites in the Sarkozy-land, one of the main perpetrators in the war of aggression against Libya, stand obviously not completely united behind their Premier. The war in Libya is even sloppily called „La guerre Sarkozy BHL contre  Kadhafi“.

BHL (= Bernard Henry Levy), millionaire, philosopher and political activist, had first talks with the „rebel leaders“ as a kind of substitute foreign minister in a special mission in Benghazi – on whose behalf whatsoever. He advised Sarkozy to officially recognize the rebel council, which he did on 03/10/2011 – without the actual French foreign minister Juppé being informed – the latter is said to have felt snubbed.

***
Bombing a country without any significant air defense is coward and disgusting. Germany’s political class that extorted Westerwelle a statement of respect and a humble loyalty to the NATO because of its successful bombing of Libya has now apparently made its peace with the military „solutions“ ​​.

Why „smart defense“ is the opposite of smart defense

by Skeptizissimus, october 10, 2011, translation by Google

First of all: defense is probably the most important prerequisite for the undisputed sovereignty of a country. And sovereignty in international law and state law includes the integrity of national territory and the decisions of government.

Those who have saved up some minimal residual sympathy for the Federal Republic and perhaps even secretly hope that the media are not brought into line as if by an invisible force, may, with Google’s new search algorithm, search for the term „smart defense“. Surprise! No German-language newspaper or television station reported on the results of the signing of the Brussels conference of NATO defense ministers.

Thanks to the semi-government Russian RIA-Novosti, there are fortunately a little clarification:

Again, a piece of the remaining residual sovereignty of Germany and of all Member States are being eroded. The defense of NATO is to be made in the field of armament „more efficient“.

[Read more …]

Hostility Towards Germans Part II: German Self-Hatred and Leftist Ideology

Written by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage  

Translated by J M Damon

<Following is a translation of a German blog posted at <http://korrektheiten.com/2011/08/04/deutschenfeindlichkeit-teil-2-deutscher-selbsthass-und-linke-ideologie/>

[Part I of my lecture on “Hostility Towards Germans” dealt with the ideology that has resulted from the anti German narrative in the West.
I described how and why this ideology has always been and will always be inappropriate for Germany.
In the following section I discuss the consequences that necessarily derive from the adoption of this narrative by the Germans themselves.
In conclusion I discuss the role played by leftist ideology in the overall complex of hostility toward Germans.]

German Adoption of the Western anti German Narrative

As the result of the powerful effect of various venues of American propaganda following World War II, a cataclysmic shift took place in German political thinking. It was a shift in the direction of the Anglo Saxon ideology of revolutionary liberalism and later Marxism. In both cases it consisted of the acceptance of the basic assumptions of the revolutionary Meta-Ideology.

Among other things, this created a “We – You” differentiation based on ideology rather than ethnicity or national political basis.   The new norm was accepted as a matter of course, until “We” were no longer Germans or even the Europeans. “We” became a party in the global ideological civil war (“The West,” “Western Community of Values,” or “The Free World”). “We” became whoever shared revolutionary Utopian ideals.

Following the demise of the Soviet Union ever larger portions of the Left have come over to this “We,” as is quite obvious from the comet like careers of former “‘68ers”.

For the victorious powers, this new definition of the We-group, based on ideological allegiance meant a latent contradiction in their self-identity as nations. This was true not only for the Russians, who had fought more for Mother Russia than Communism (but whose victory served Communism more than Russia); it was also true for Americans and Britons. It was not easy to equate “My Country Right or Wrong” with the latest scheme to “make the world safe for Democracy.” As we have seen, these contradictions were just latent for the wartime Allies since they had fought as nations rather than as standard bearers for abstract ideas.

Among us Germans the contradictions were more than latent. They could not be ignored the instant we adopted the narratives and Utopian ideologies of our victorious enemies, as we did after the Second World War. A national “We Group” is a supragenerational community that includes past generations as well as those yet to come. The logic that compels a German Chancellor to participte in Allied victory celebrations in Paris, Normandy and Moscow implies that both world wars were battles in European and global civil wars.
They were gigantic struggles won by “The Western Community of Values” or simply “Democracy” (in Russia’s case, it was Utopian ideology as such) over the Forces of Darkness, and since “we” (re-educated, reconstructed Germans) belonged to this community of values, “we” were among the victors whereas „the Germans“ (i.e. the strange people which called itself „the Germans“), the embodiment of all evil, were the losers.

The German adoption of Western Ideology and of Meta-Ideology in general implies a loss of identification with our own VOLK. It compels us to consider our own VOLK as the enemy, to abhor ourselves as an outgrowth of evil and to hate our own forbears. Germany is the only country in the world that erects monuments to traitors and deserters, the only country in which it is considered exemplary to spit on the grave of one’s grandparents. The historical narrative of the victors – with its global political concepts, its highflown Utopian worldview – can never be the narrative of Germans who want to be German. If they adopt it, it will be at the cost of self-obliteration. The contradiction between being German and being part of a historical subject called „Western community of values“ is  unbridgeable.

The problem is underscored rather than solved by lame efforts to unite incompatibles in formulaic compromises such as “constitutional patriotism.”
This hostility towards one’s own VOLK is specifically German, as is illustrated than by the fact that the so-called “anti Germans” (as they call themselves!) comprise the only political grouping that refers to itself with the word “German.”  Not even the Neonazis do that, as they refer to themselves simply as “nationals,” emphasizing that they consider nationalism to be something good in itself – not only for Germans but for everyone. The anti Germans, by contrast, express the opposite wish: they want to eradicate the German VOLK, but not necessarily the very concept VOLK. Interestingly, they are attempting to do this through ideological rationalization, precisely what I identified as the foundation of anti German hostility in Part I of this series: The idea that Germany is (or was) the epitome of anti Utopian, anti globalistic counterrevolutionary force normally goes unstated except among anti Germans. My analysis is not far removed from that of the anti Germans; only the qualifying prefixes are reversed.

Leftist Ideology

Inner logic compels societies that support the fundamental assumptions of liberal Utopianism to quickly become involved with its hostile twin, Marxism – Socialism. In general terms we can refer to them both as Leftist Ideology. Whoever condemns society’s power imbalances on the basis that they are not founded in rationalism, and believes these imbalances are evil and must be stamped out, should not be surprised when the imbalance between rich and poor also comes under the crosshairs of criticism. Whoever champions freedom and equality as universally valid, and as basic values of society, has to deal with opposition to freedom in the name of equality. The Marxists who actively oppose capital because its power is not rationally legitimate but rather arises through automatism (derived from the nature of capitalism itself), leading to the mastery of one class over the other, rely on the same logic as the liberals who polemicize against church and king. In some regards Marxists are more consistent than liberals, since they condemn all social inequalities. For example, they condemn inequality between rich and poor; employed and unemployed; the citizen and the state; and between parents and children as well as majority and minority (either ethnic or religious).

From the point of Leftist ideology the more powerful party is illegitimate simply because it is more powerful. This implies that it should not be allowed to deal with the weaker on the basis of “merely formal” equality before the law, but must be actively disadvantaged. Correspondingly, from this point of view, it is not injustice to plunder the rich for the benefit of the poor or the employed for the benefit of the unemployed. Leftist Ideology assumes that the law and the state are repressive, since they use the same measuring stick to measure dissimilar entities, instead of causing what is unequal to be equal; and needless to say, there are no laws to protect the majority from the minority. On page 28 of “DEUTSCHE OPFER, FREMDE TÄTER” Götz Kubitschek and Michael Paulwitz cite a typically Leftist position asserting that racism against Germans cannot exist. This is because racism is a medium of repression that by its very nature cannot be inflicted on a majority by a minority because of the minority’s lesser social power to enforce its will.

In simple language this means that the “weaker party,” that is, an ethnic minority, is allowed to do everything, whereas the “stronger” (in Germany, the Germans) are not allowed to do anything, but must endure everything.
The power that is presumed to be stronger is automatically the evil power since it benefits from the alleged repression (that it also reinforces.)

Furthermore: since the mere existence of power disparity is the “evil” to be faced and fought, a belated “equalizing” injustice will no longer suffice.
The very basis of the power imbalance must be eliminated: wealth itself; or, as is especially pertinent to our theme, the ethnic majority must be eliminated.
From the point of view of the Left, a majority VOLK or ethnic group has no right to exist.

The Left is not satisfied with representing the interests of the “weak;” it is determined to delegitimize the “strong.” In our country the Left deligitimizes the interests of Germans, Christians, men, nonfeminist or nonlesbian women, whites, heterosexuals and gainfully employed workers. In other words, the Left opposes the interests of the majority and seeks to either force these majorities into the minority or else annihilate them altogether. This is the logic behind the policy of de-Christianization, de-Germanization, de-Europeanization, feminization and the promotion of homosexuality.
Only the gainfully employed cannot be abolished; however, it is permissible to pick their pockets, since they have placed themselves in an evil and repressive position just by existing from the fruits of their own labor.

It is self-evident that such a policy cannot possibly be democratic, since it is systematically directed against the majority. Thus leftist ideology naturally results in the propagation of demophobia (fear of the masses), de-democratization and coups d’etat. Of course it finds allies in minorities of every description.

All this has to do with the psychology of minorities in general, which is characterized by deep resentments. The minorities feel that the way of life of the majority, in which they are unable and unwilling to participate, should at least be spoiled for the majority. A good illustration of minority resentment is the bum who urinates in the vestibule of the bank. Racism against Germans is just one variation of this sort of resentment although a significant one.
Leftist ideology seeks to mobilize such destructiveness.

Hostility Towards Germans Part I: The Anti-German Narrative in the West

Written by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage

 

Translated by J M Damon

 

Following is a translation of a blog posted at http://korrektheiten.com/2011/08/02/deutschenfeindlichkeit-das-westliche-antideutsche-narrativ/

The blog begins:

[On 16 July 2011 the author gave a lecture before the Berlin Institute for State Policy on the subject of “Hostility Towards Germans – An Appraisal” in conjunction with the Institute’s 18th Course of Lectures. Unfortunately there are no recordings of this highly interesting event.  In response to requests, I have reconstituted my speech from notes. Since the lecture is too long for a single blog article I am posting it as a series, beginning with “The Anti-German Narrative in the West.]

 

 

DEUTSCHENFEINDLICHKEIT (Hostility Toward the German People) Is a Complex Phenomenon.

 

Many peoples, such as Poles, French, British and Jews, harbor a traditional resentment against the German peoplethat dates from the Second World War and preceding wars.

In addition, there is a kind of intellectual hostility toward all things German that has less to do with dislike of Germans as people than dislike and fear of the German state, which, it is feared, will become too powerful.

There is distrust of the German national character.

There is hostility toward all things German, especially on the part of the migrants who live here.

There is even a certain ant German hostility among the Germans themselves.

There is in fact an entire ideology that includes as one of its central elements DEUTSCHFEINDLICHKEIT (hostility towards all things German.)

[The subject of my lecture was DEUTSCHENFEINDLICHKEIT , or hostility toward the German people.

When in the following I use primarily the word DEUTSCHFEINDLICHKEIT (hostility toward things German) as opposed toDEUTSCHENFEINDLICHKEIT (hostility toward the German people), I am trying to make clear that I am referring not simply to hostility toward Germans, but rather, in a broad and inclusive sense, to various hostilities against German things and attributes in general, such as the cultural VOLK, the state, the general German population, etc.]

 

The various facets and levels of this complex of hostilities are not isolated or disconnected; they penetrate and reinforce each other and merge to form a real danger for the German VOLK.

The hostility toward things German that Goetz Kubitschek and Michael Paulwitz discuss in their book “DEUTSCHE OPFER – FREMDE TÄTER” (German Victims, Foreign Perpetrators: <http://www.deutscheopfer.de/>) is only one side of the coin, as I will discuss later on.

The other side of the coin is the hostility that is found in our own camp, which combined with mass migration is creating the real danger of our becoming a minority in own own country.

Obviously this would pose a threat to our domestic security.

“Our own camp” includes especially our power elite, whose anti German hostility poses a strategic problem.

The Western culture that includes Germany forms a broader context.  Its elite evinces anti German hostility that has less to do with actual resentment than with ideology.

 

The Western anti German Narrative

 

The most common and widespread basis for hostility toward things German is what I call the Western anti German narrative.

“Narrative” is a new expression in German — we could also speak of an ideology of history.

In this ideology, which is spread by films, literature, and popular depictions of history, Germany has represented a danger for its neighbors in the past and still represents a potential danger.

For this reason Germany must be fettered, disempowered and diluted because the German national character is anti democratic, excessively obedient to established authority, collectivistic, violence prone, warlike, genocidal, etc., etc.

Present day historians are generally too sophisticated to draw a clear and direct line between Luther, Frederick, Bismarck and Hitler, but the lingering effects of such propagandistic historiography are still quite noticeable today, expressed in thetendency to treat all German history as the prehistory of the Third Reich.

 

One cannot understand this concept of history unless one understands the historical context of the European civil war that has been raging since 1789.

[Hanno Kesting’s work GESCHICHTSPHILOSOPHIE UND WELTBÜRGERKRIEG. DEUTUNGEN DER GESCHICHTE VON DER FRANZÖSISCHEN REVOLUTION BIS ZUM OST-WEST-KONFLIKT (Philosophy of History and Global Civil War: The Significance of the History of the French Revolution to the East-West Conflict), published in 1959, is well worth reading in this regard.

Today it is unavailable even at antiquarian bookstores, but good libraries still have it – at any rate, the BERLINER STAATSBIBLIOTHEK (Berlin State Library) has it.]

 

This civil war is being fought by the adherents of three ideologies who constantly change their names, slogans and programs but still retain a recognizable identity and continuity.

We are dealing with two utopian and one non-utopian worldviews, Liberalism and Socialism on one hand and what is variously called Conservatism, Reaction or simply the Political Right on the other hand.

Regardless of their differences, both of the utopian-revolutionary ideologies have identifiable similarities that make them so fundamentally distinguishable from the Right that they can be traced back to a common “Meta-ideology.”

The utopian approach assumes that the possibility of peaceful and civilized coexistence among mankind.

This would not have to be a miracle, but is rather something that can come about as a matter of course.

For this reason one does not have to examine and analyze the fundamentals of society itself; one can directly and immediately pursue the realization of paradise on earth, either through gradual reform or revolutionary violence.

 

The Utopian Ideologies Imply a Number of Assumptions

 

Firstly, utopian societies hold that man is by nature good.

Social conditions such as inequality and lack of freedom are responsible for the existence of evil and must therefore be banished.

The approach of the political Right is that man is inadequate and weak and mired in original sin and must therefore rely on a social order for support.

Therefore a certain measure of inequality and bondage must be accepted as necessary.

The alternatives are not “Liberty, Equality,Fraternity” but rather chaos, violence and barbarism.

 

Secondly, Utopian ideologies hold that society can be rationally planned; its design is a matter of reason and enlightenment.

The Right, by contrast, believes that what is traditional and established can be destroyed by criticism, but cannot be replaced by anything better through rational processes.

Examples of what cannot be replaced by rationalism are the concepts of family, faith, tradition and Fatherland.

 

Thirdly, Utopian societies hold that what is “Good” (such as Freedom and Equality) can be rationally inferred, thus theGood is culturally independent and universally valid.

They believe that mankind can be redeemed if the Utopia derived from Enlightenment principles can be globally introduced.

For Conservatives, on the other hand, each culture is a unique, unplanned and irreproducible response to the elementary question of whether an orderly society is possible.

The Right emphasizes the legitimacy of the particular as opposed to the validity of universal ideology.

 

Fourthly, Utopian societies harbor the belief that society has to be defined and analyzed according to their standards.

These standards comprise a standpoint of norms rather than facts – thus “What Should Be” trumps “What Is.”

They are derived from rights rather than duties.

The Utopian concept of society confuses itself with “Reason and Enlightenment” because it is built on unreal notions instead of imperfect reality, and thus mistakes itself for “The Good.”

The reason Utopia mistakes itself for “The Good” is because it proceeds from the assumption that Man himself is good, and this implies that “The Bad” resides in social structures and concepts including tradition, articles of faith, duty, etc.

In their way of thinking, if the structures are bad the defenders of these structures must likewise be bad.

Obviously, tolerance cannot be based on such a concept of society; the less it is practiced, the less its adherents feel the need for it.

 

The Utopian concept of society produces an apocalyptic concept of politics, according to which politics is a struggle between the powers of light and of darkness.

Consequently, war is not perceived as tragic and inescapable.

It is perceived as justified when it is conducted for revolutionary aims and purposes.

In that case, every atrocity is acceptable.

The Utopian concept perceives war as criminal when it is conducted for counterrevolutionary aims and purposes, and then the means by which it is conducted are not taken into consideration.

 

And what does all this have to do with hostility against all things German?

 

If we conceive of 20th Century wars as parts of a global ideological civil war, Germany obviously represents the Right.

Germany could never accept the idea that wars are conducted in order to bring about “The Good Order” such as “War to End All War.”

This Utopian idea results in an apocalyptic concept of politics.

The idea of “Good War” is part of the Utopian concept of the liberalist world order as pursued by the Western “democracies” as well as the variant of Communism pursued by the Soviet Union.

The accusation that Germany was striving for world domination, which was put forward at the beginning of the 20th Century, would have been absurd even if not raised by the Anglo Saxon powers!

At every moment of the 19th and 20th centuries, those countries were infinitely closer to world domination than Germany ever was, and they continue to be so in the 21st Century.

 

Nations that were protected by insular geography have historically indulged in bold thinking and thanks to this geography, have been able to pursue global expansionist policies.

The liberal New World Order that appeared on the world stage before the First World War was also a fitting ideology for global Utopian thinking, since imperialistic power politics functioned as the armed branch of Utopia.

It is not true that one was merely a function of the other.

Both aspects of Anglo Saxon (and particularly American) policy) were aspects of one and the same understanding of politics.

 

By contrast, Germany traditionally represented institutionalized counter-revolution.

Globalist Utopian thinking was alien to the German power elite, since they faced the reality of governing a state that was constantly threatened from the inside as well as the outside.

Their political horizon was continental as opposed to insular, and so they were concerned with the consolidation of what actually existed.

The Reich did indeed adopt liberal, democratic and even socialistic ideas – consider the Bismarckian social legislation.

However, it did so only on condition that these ideas would consolidate the existing order.

The door was open for socialistic ideas to develop, but they would never be allowed to destroy the existing order.

 

This political concept (renunciation of revolutionary or utopian policies) determined the policies not only of conservatives, but of the Liberals as well, and ultimately even the policies of the Social Democrats.

The tendency to think in revolutionary and utopian terms was simply alien to Germany — it was too weak and exposed to attempt changing the world order or to entertain ideas of world conquest.

However, Germany was at least potentially strong enough to bring Europe into its sphere of influence and thus block establishment of a new world order; and if Europe were going to be true to its name, it would have to do likewise.

 

The war against Germany, which, as Winston Churchill observed, was in fact a Thirty Years War lasting from 1914 – 1945, was obviously not fought in response to any “crimes” committed by the National Socialists.

Instead, the Thirty Year War War Against Germany was fought to force Europe into the liberalist-utopian world order and the Anglo Saxon sphere of control.

Germany did not subscribe to any grandiose principle that it wanted to make real.

It was a nation rooted in concrete reality whose order and goals was derived not from utopian designs but practical necessity.

The Germans had no abstract loyalty toward liberal or “democratic” ideals, and this is what brought on the propagandistic accusation of being excessively obedient.

 

Germany did not pretend to be fighting for universal bliss, therefore it had to defend interests that were defined not ideologically but rather ethnically.

Germany’s enemies construed this as “nationalism.”

In fact, Germany championed communal values instead of individual entitlements.

It was not co-incidence that a current theme in German sociology was Ferdinand Tönnies’ opposition ofGEMEINSCHAFT (Community) to GESELLSCHAFT (Society.)

This is what constituted the “Collectivism” of which the Germans were accused.

Communal ideals are operative only when they are anchored in genuine emotions, the source of the cliche of German “romanticism” and “irrationality.”

 

In short, the facts that the Germans were different and thought differently from the Anglo Saxons and that they had no sense of Utopia, but rather represented a danger for its global realization, made them the principal enemy figure for Western Utopian thinking.

The cliches about the German national character represent the distorted and demagogically biased description of tendencies and dispositions that actually were (and still are) present.

These cliches were indispensible because a country like Germany could not afford globalistic Utopianism.

As we see today, Germany still cannot afford it.

Whether the Anglo Saxon peoples themselves can continue to afford it remains to be seen…

 

[Part II of DEUTSCHENFEINDLICHKEIT will deal with the adoption of the Western anti-German narrative by the Germans themselves and the consequences that have arisen from this.

 

****************

 

The translator is a “Germanophilic Germanist” who attempts to make noteworthy German articles accessible to Germanophiles who do not read German.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Four Theses on Germany and the West

by Schattenkoenig

To prepare for an interview with Carolyn Yeager, Schattenkoenig worked out in English the following thoughts to highlight some crucial aspects of Germany’s (and, in general, the West’s) situation.

I. The German concept of Geopolitik

The term describes an outline of global political strategies centered on the German Reich and founded in the tradition of holistic views which had dominated German thinking since the Middle Ages, when the Reich (Holy Roman Empire of Germanic Nation) had formed a kind of ordering brace for nations which maintained their autonomy and national character. In the new age, a more genetic viewpoint was established, giving respect to different peoples’ characters.

Most important seems to me the rooting of German Geopolitik in a scientific and rationally gained perspective of what is given naturally. It thinks of peoples as of what they really are and what their realistic potentials are, instead of forming peoples according to some utopian ideology which is inadequate for reality. The powers victorious over Germany in 1945 were unfortunately following ideological concepts and had little respect for peoples’ natural conditions. If reality causes their utopian views to fail, the worse they make it turn out for reality which will be forced to „change“ – until all the world will wake up in a new totalitarian and globe-spanning Soviet Union with no freedom left to speak out the facts.

Geopolitik was fully aware of the fact that there were powers in the world aiming at erecting such a global totalitarian and artificial system. The German intellectuals had fully recognized Western Liberal Capitalism and Marxism as two sides of one medal or, in a better analogy, two arms in a pincer movement with the goal of overwhelming all nations and blending them into a world economic system. Geopolitik was a defensive theory against these attempts undertaken by France, Great Britain and, later, by the Soviet Union.

The Ideal of German Geopolitics was the „organic nation“, defined as a physically, morally and economically healthy people optimally realizing its given potentials. The national economy was to be safeguarded from dependence to outward interests, therefore a strive for „autarky“ was adopted. A nation which is able to produce everything it needs and consumes within their guarded boarders is less likely to be blackmailed or stifled in case of conflict.

This concept was already a strong motivation before World War I, and the National Socialists added the concept of „racial purity“ as they believed the character of a people and even its political decisions being determinated by its genetics. This also led to fatal errors, e.g. as they expected England to be a natural ally against France and Russia. They couldn’t have been further from what then really happened, as Britain (and also the U.S.) were completely undermined and subverted by a clandestine power capable of dominating a people totally, economically and mentally.

As the German people was still in demographic growth at the time the concept was developed, and Germany already had a high population density, the concept of „Lebensraum“ gained importance. Even the idea that a smaller nation which had no opportunity to gain autarky and strength on their own was to disappear and give way to its greater neighbour seems to have risen from the earliest concepts, and was only popularized by Hitler and the National Socialists as a kind of social darwinism of nations. The concept has nothing to do with genocides or exterminating peoples in favor of another one, but as there was a theory in which countries like Belgium, Luxembourg or Poland had no perspective of existing very much longer, it seems no longer a big thing to wipe them off the map deliberately and subdue their peoples to German dominion.

The Geopolitik also had little respect for existing borders because of the natural condition of Germany having no natural boundaries and therefore having been subject to foreign intrusions for centuries (e.g. the Thirty Years’ War). The only boarder of interest was the „Volksgrenze“, which was allowed to expand, also giving way to military means, if the German people expanded continually.

II. German and Western concept of economic science

In a similar way as Geopolitik, the German view on economics was integrated and holistic. It had always been a consensus, even beyond the German boarder, that totally uncontrolled markets pose a severe threat to freedom and security of peoples and even might end up in mass starvation and genocide. In an economy uncontrolled by means of „the state“ there would be players active aiming to ever greater control of the market and to ever greater profits, and the more profit a player would be able to make, the mightier and less scrupulous he would become, and as he cares not for the people’s welfare but solely his profit, the result would be a big monopoly with prices for things of basic need the average consumer is unable to pay.

German economic scientists, and even from other European countries such as France, Italy or England, were aware that, in order to reach the goal of national prosperity, there had to be established a state-controlled economy for things of basic needs, such as water, electricity, food, communication and transport.

If you are talking to economic liberalists today and come up with this fact, they will usually denounce such kinds of thoughts to be „marxist“, „socialist“ or other harsh words. They have inhalated the concept of total freedom of every economic movement, especially that of peoples and money. While they do so in oder to silence opposition even before it can develop its thoughts completely, they couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, the concept of total market liberty is in itself much more Marxist than the traditional continental approach to economy.

Liberalism, as it dominates scientific and political debates today, comes from a completely different school of thought which has no roots in the traditional theory of national economics. Those who formulated the essential works on liberal economy had their personal experience not in the field of working or organizing work and supply for the people in a certain area but rather dealt in transregional trade or in stock markets. Therefore it is not a surprise that their own economic interest comes to dominate their theoretical building. These people made their interest in no boundaries for trade into a central economic „law“, although it is no natural law as the Law of gravity but a demand to legislation.

Today the „theory“ of free markets, which is in fact a wonderfully unproblematic way for globally operating trade concerns to gain huge amounts of profit, even dares to force the „four fundamental flows“ upon every single nation. These flows are: Money (Investitions in and Profits out), Goods (Natural resources MUST be allowed out everywhere, Products in everywhere), Information (concerning production factors) and Workforce. The last thing of these is the most dangerous of all, as a free flow of workers across the globe will root up entire peoples and force them into a soulless system of exploitation and maximization of profits. To secure these four flows, the U.S. military strategy considers to establish a fifth flow: that of „U.S. Strategical Services“, which actually means: War on every nation resisting the implementation of the flows.

Where Marx criticizes „Capitalism“, it is always this form of capitalism he describes. From the perspective of early 19. century Germany, this is untrue as there were actual means of limiting and moderating markets by imposing legislation in favor of national welfare. Marx’ main argument is: In an economy as he describes it, revolution is a necessity. But as Marx considers revolution a necessity anyway, why not let things turn out really bad for the masses first. Therefore the most unscrupulous capitalists, the international bankers and the Marxists always got along so very good for the last 150 years. Marxists, in fact, even are the bankers’ stormtroopers which do their dirty but necessary work.

The Marxist system of rule will come either way, be it via a Marxist revolution or as a creeping menace, as it is today. Neither Western liberalism nor classical Marxism will lead European and American societies out of that pincer movement. Maybe a consideration of the long-established but long-forgotten continental theories of holistic economics may provide a way out.

III. War Propaganda

Following the establishment of great nation states, great standing armies were put up, and in order to provide to these armies a sense of what they were for, states had to conduct propaganda on a greater scale. The Western powers, especially Britain, had got this point very early. Britain was the driving force in encirculating the German Reich, as it, from the No. 1 position, was afraid of any concurrent possibly rising on the Continent. In order to prepare a war against Germany propagandistically, the „Tavistock Institute on Human Relations“ was founded. Ever heard of it? And it is still in existence, for 100 years now. This institute instrumentalized defamation, infamy and lies for the cause of demonizing Germany as a people.

In order to get war bonds sold to simple British citizens for financing Britain’s war measures, the Institute set up in their propaganda posters the idea of Germany aiming at conquering the whole world and enslaving Britons. They spread the lies of German soldiers cutting off babies’ hands, raping Belgian nuns and processing fallen British soldiers into swine food – even in WWI!

There is this person named Edward Bernays. He was an American Jew, a nephew to Sigmund Freud. As the Jewish network wanted America to join forces with Britain against Germany, Bernays went to Britain and worked in the Tavistock Institute with the goal of propagandizing unto the American People until they believed war against Germany, which the U.S. didn’t border to and which never posed a direct threat to it, was a necessity. Can you think of a greater act of treason than getting your homeland into a war in favor of a foreign power, without the slightest interest for itself? After the war had ended, Bernays instrumentalized some of the propagandistic techniques for advertising and for public campaigns, which became known as Public Relations.

Germany had nothing to set against this perfidy. It tried to present the facts and figures about national education, expenditure for the armed forces and the amount of war ships built to invalidate the accusations of being „barbaric“, „war-seeking“ or „militarist“. Unfortunately, the truth about these topics is only presentable as numbers, and propaganda posters presenting numbers are not very supposed to catch peoples’ eyes and bring in money from war bonds. Only as of 1917, the Germans made their first picture-only propaganda poster, showing a soldier with the words „Helft uns siegen“ (Help us win). It raised ten times the result of the previous posters. Tragically, before Germany lost WWI militarically, it lost the war propagandistically.

And this tragedy even repeated in WWII, as Germany had drawn consequences from the propaganda disaster in WWI. Goebbels’ Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, which has subsequently been demonized as telling infamous lies, had actually just found a way of putting things into catchy headlines while the Allies’ propagandistic branches spread even more diabolic lies over the world. Unfortunately, the power which lied much less lost again and was then blamed for all sins every fighting power had committed. Just look up the name of Ilja Ehrenburg if you want to know of what kind the Allies’ war propaganda was.

IV. The situation in Germany today

Any German who still thinks the German education system will provide him with an adequate mindset is hopelessly enslaved by the Matrix. Germany today is not a free country, but the elites never stop praising their system as „the most democratic, the most free state ever in existence on German soil“. In fact, you are free to consume drugs, you are free to kill your children as long as they are yet unborn, you are free marching naked through the streets on one of those notorious CSDs – but you are NOT free to call this kind of „freedom“ decadent and menacing to our future. You are also not free to claim that the procreation of imported Islamic minorities will not only put these symptoms of decadence to an end but also will bury the small rest of our civil rights when they start struggling for the installation of Sharia Courts.

This struggle is IMO about to come, but I don’t consider it to be possibly successful. Islamists have been brought in in masses to destroy the traditional character of the country, to riot in the streets and to stoke fears among the populace, but the main purpose is to make the peoples more likely to accept a totalitarian control system, a Police state which is designed mainly by the EU. The Federal Republic is even eager to deconstruct its own statehood, its own possibility to handle the coming conflicts because the FRG-Pseudo-Elites are so eager for careers in Bruxelles and are, of course, highly confident in the European Utopia. What the average German says about this bureaucratic juggernaut doesn’t matter at all, as with modern media manipulation tools in „modern-day Democracy“, the „Souvereign“ (i.e. the average) can be forced into arbitrary states of mind.

In 2007, I took part in a demonstration in Bruxelles on September 11th in order to commemorate the victims of the New York atrocity. At that time I was still very much „critical to Islam“ and believed the lie set up by people like Ralph Giordano („Not migration is the problem, but Islam is“ – in fact it’s just the other way round). But nevertheless the event was forbidden by the Communist Bruxelles mayor (in Belgium, unlike in Germany, mayors even have the power to forbid demonstrations). Heavy armed police forces were out on the streets, with armored cars on every corner. I saw a man arrested for nothing but standing with a Crucifix and recitating verses from the Bible. I saw people getting handcuffed for flying national flags. Later I heard that there were even MdEPs (Members of European Parliament) and members of the national parliament of Belgium, of the group Vlaams Belang, heavily beaten up and taken into arrest. The Bruxelles mayor had deliberately ordered French-speaking police forces from the Walloonia to „pacify“ the situation, exploiting the inner-Belgian national conflict for his purposes. In Bruxelles, the Muslim part of the population was then already 57%, and the Communist Party led a coalition with several Islamic fractions in the town hall.

In 2008, there was a rally organized in Cologne called „Antiislamisierungskongreß“. A few hundred demonstrators were present, but the official city government organized a counter-demonstration which consisted of more than 20,000 leftists and „Gutmenschen“. The mayor of Cologne, whose son was even killed by a Turkish car driver in 2001, called the conservative demonstrators „braune Soße, die ins Klo gehört“ (brown sauce belonging into a toilet). The Police „failed“ in protecting the demonstrators, of which some were heavily beaten up. A river boat they had rented for the day was thrown at with stones so it almost sank. Finally the whole event had to be blown off. Leftist and militant „Antifa“ forces, indoctrinated school classes, Marxist priests with their also indoctrinated parishes join forces with the official administration – and in the future also with the police – against those who simply rally for Germany to keep its German character. This mess is called „Aufstand der Anständigen“ (Rise of the Righteous).
To provide oneself with a more adequate picture of his country’s very own history, one has to really be both courageous and creative. There is a newspaper which is in fact just a little bit more right-winged than the Allied-licensed press cartel (Junge Freiheit). It comes out weekly on Fridays. Sometimes when I wanted a copy, all the copies from my local kiosque were sold out by Friday 12:00 and no copies were left. This wasn’t because of a high demand for the paper but because the copies were not delivered to the kiosque – some leftist working for the delivery company had got behind what was in the package and simply annihilated it. In another press shop I asked for that newspaper and almost was kicked out by the shopkeeper, who then got a highly red head and almost wasn’t able to speak properly how much she despised of „people reading such papers“, and she „didn’t want to have to do with such papers“.

And the Junge Freiheit is long not capable of providing you the entire picture. Articles on general history dealing with the national socialist epoque are quite sparse. I most profited from reading the „Deutsche Geschichte“, a revisionist magazine which appears six times a year. The Editor reported of one case in which shopkeepers were threatened to get their shops burnt down by Leftists for just having the Deutsche Geschichte in its shop! The Editor also organizes meetings with Revisionist experts. Those meetings regularly have to be cancelled, as there are Leftists who „inform“ the hotel owners on what kind of historical views their guests have, and then the hotel clerks refuse to grant access for the referents.

This is also the way Leftists deal with unwelcome political forces such as „Die Freiheit“ (which internally is, in fact, more liberal than the CDU) or „Pro Deutschland“. These groups are simply unable to find a location to conduct their party meetings at because the location owners always get „informed“ and then act as expected. Nobody can publicly allow himself to be courageous, as reputation can – and will – be immediately destroyed. Would you want to resist a force which is willing to rip you off everything you own and even threatens to harm your home and family?

The head of the right-wing NPD, Udo Voigt, also once got kicked out of a hotel where he was spending his vacation. The hotel owner’s „explanation“ was that the other hotel guests’ right for an undisturbed stay at the hotel would outweigh the right of Mr. Voigt to stay in the hotel. Furthermore, as a private businessman he was able to decide who he wanted to have business with and with whom not. Mr. Voigt went to a court, which ruled that the hotel owner was right in doing so.
Such was the state of the German Nation in the past decade, and the actual decade is far from doing any better.