Archive
Categories

Archiv für die Kategorie „Globalism“

Well, the Aristoes have always been international …

by Le Penseur

[Due to my permanent lack of time, I have been neglecting this blog for a few months. I am now starting again with an article of Le Penseur, a sharp-tongued libertarian Austrian blogger. Original title: „Jo, die Aristos san halt seit jeher international“, published a few hours ago.]

Well, the Aristoes have always been international, and so the high princely foreign minister of Czechia, Karl („Kari“) Schwarzenberg, threatens with his resignation from the government, if Prime Minister Petr Necas does not sign the proposed „fiscal pact“ [subjecting EU member states to centralized control of their budgets]. His reason is quoted by „Die Presse“ as follows:

I will not sit in a government that will lead the Czech Republic outside the mainstream of European integration. We have a vital interest in sitting at the table and participate in major decisions that affect us strongly.

Nice words – but they mean in plain English nothing but to let the sovereignty of our state and the democratic legitimacy of our budget go West, in order to be the seventh dwarf from left in Brussels, together with other, equally powerless EU dwarves who fiddle with the Eurocrats – because those who belong to their network cannot be voted out, but those who have fallen in disgrace (see Hungary), are forced to their knees by extortion.

Well, his Highness could have miscalculated. President Klaus has already announced that he will not approve this centralization pact. While Klaus is unfortunately a chauvinist hardliner and completely unrepentant with regard to the unspeakable crimes that were committed in the expulsion of Sudeten Germans by the Czechs, he is, on the other hand, a politician to envy the Czechs! Compared with the vermin that mans our government and Parliament benches …

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“ ​​.

Liberal and Conservative Criticism of Islam

A text originally published in German on pi-news.net („Liberale und konservative Islamkritik“), highlighting the ideological gap between the two wings of the anti-Islamic movement in Europe, and arguing for a more conservative criticism of Islam.

I hope native English speakers will excuse the many mistakes in the translation. I could have avoided them by first writing down the translation, then reading out. But this is a video, and I intended to preserve its oral character.

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 Toward Germans Part III: White Guilt and Islamic Chauvinism

Hostility Toward Germans Part III:

White Guilt and Islamic Chauvinism

Written by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage

Translated by J M Damon

A translation of a German blog posted at

[Following is Part III of my lecture “Hostility Towards the Germans – Taking Stock” which was presented to the Institut für Staatspolitik (Institute for State Policy) as part of the 18th Berlin Colloquium on 16 July 2011.]

Expansion of the Paradign of anti German Hostility

to the Entire West

As we have seen, hostility toward Germany and Germans exists on three levels.

On the lowest (first) level, it is the kind of hostility or antagonism that is directed toward a specific Volk or people (in our case the Germans.)

On this level we are dealing with simple resentments dating to former antagonisms (such as those with the Poles, English and Jews.)

On a higher (second) level, anti German hostility is the expression of a kind of globalistic ideology.

Germany was historically assumed to be the prinipal antagonist (the “quintessential evil”), and Germany could again be seen this way.

These antagonisms have led to hostility on an even more abstract (third) level.

The antagonism against the German people is part of an ideological syndrome that is directed against the existence of national groups per se, particularly against whites.

At present, anti German ideology has been universalized to a White Guilt Paradigm. According to the White Guilt Paradigm, white peoples are burdened with guilt because of their evil nature. The paradigm includes the expansion of anti German ideology to all the countries of the West, and their “guilt” takes diverse forms including colonialism, the extermination of American Indians (along with other indigenous peoples) and even African slavery.

White people are blamed for African slavery despite the fact that it was a brief interlude in Western culture and is furthermore an institution blessed by Allah, in keeping with Islamic law. It is still unofficially practiced in many Islamic countries and would still be practiced in Africa if the West had not abolished it. According to the White Guilt Paradigm, the Western nations must pay for their guilt by surrendering their lands to invasion by nonwhite peoples from all over the world. This “politically correct” paradigm has elevated self-destruction to an official virtue and moral imperative in nearly all Western countries.

This self-mandated genocide in the West involves more than merely permitting mass in-migration, since Globalism aims to abolish more than just national groups. In keeping with its Enlightenment genesis, and in the name of the Utopia of Self-Created Man, it takes aim at all pre-existing ties.

Included among these ties are the family and all gender-specific differentiations. In this assault on Western institutions, Globalism utilizes catchwords such as “gender mainstreaming” and “patchwork families,” and it advocates homosexuality, hedonistic sexual morals, abortion; etc.

In general, Globalism opposes the idea that man can be more than an atomized individual, and it rejects the possibility that man can be part of a transcendent entirety, an integral part of a natural progression of generations. Apparently we cannot entirely banish the idea of responsibility for those born after us – apparently it is born in us.

However, globalistic utopianism has succeeded in dislodging it from its embedment in an actual chain of generations and transferred it to a totally abstract level. This was all the easier because responsibility for an abstract “Mankind” or “Creation” is ideally suited to relieve the individual of real responsibility for his own life as well as the lives of his children.

The individual thus “liberated” pays for his “liberation” with political support for more or less totalitarian projects for the rapture of all mankind.

Needless to say, Globalism seeks to divest religion (especially Christianity) of its authenticity, as official Christians with state go about proclaiming that “all religions strive for the same goal”. This idea is highly suspect to the followers of “all religions” except Christianity, but it irritates Westerners no more than the traditional and obvious objection: if all religions strive for the same thing, why are there so many different religions? The Christian religion’s claim to truth, whose central articles of faith include the belief that Man alone cannot redeem himself, disrupts realization of the Enlightenment Utopia. For this reason, very little traditional religious folklore has to survive.

It is necessary for the Globalists to anchor this ideological syndrome in more than just our heads, however. If that were all that is required, it could easily be displaced by argumentation. The syndrome is also anchored structurally in an elite international network whose followers are obligated to support this ideological paradigm. In addition, it is included in countless varied state and nongovernmental institutions. The force that is undermining the will and capacity for self-assertion among European peoples is not just ideology itself, but rather a complex structure that builds on this ideology and is dedicated to the destruction of our peoples.

Islamic Chauvinism

The structures of family, Volk and religion have traditionally provided solidarity in the Western societies, but they are now being ideologically dismantled. Western societies are now atomized while confronted with massive immigration by Muslims, whose society is not infected with self-destructive ideologies.

It is well understood that Islam is not simply a religion but rather a social ideology and social order as well. It is a social order that is programmed to be self-stabilizing. Islam stresses everything that holds human society together. The fragile and complex balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, freedoms and restrictions, rights and duties that has always characterized Christian societies is foreign to Islam. Today this balance has been disrupted in the West by centrifugal and emancipating forces that have gained the upper hand.

The distinction between “Us” vs.“Them”, between believers and nonbelievers, is central to the religion of Islam. This distinction is not a co-incidental admixture from the Middle Ages that can arbitrarily be deleted from their religion. Rather, it is inherent in their images of God and man.

If Man is not made in the image of God, as Christians and Jews postulate, but is instead pure invention and property, in fact a slave of his Creator, then total submission to Allah (“Islam”) is the only proper relationship.

Thus Muslims are a priori better people than non-Muslims, since non-Muslims resist Allah, who is affronted by their very existence.

In support of such intolerance the Koran does not spare tirades of hatred against “nonbelievers” whose inferiority and depravity comprise a basic assumption of Islam. Thus the Law of Enmity must remain in effect between Muslims and non-Muslims until the worldwide triumph of Islam.

Under such assumptions, an ethos of self-criticism cannot develop.

The Koran opposes the biblical admonition “Judge not, lest you be also judged” with “We are the best society that ever existed among men, we strive for the good and forbid the evil, and we believe in Allah.” One’s shirt of course can fit more snugly than one’s coat, and so a Turk for example can still favor the welfare of his own people over that of the Arabs (not to mention the Kurds.)

The fundamental assertion that Mankind is to be seen through the glasses of a We-You Relationship also presents the worldview of less religious Muslims. In countries such as Turkey it inspires ethnic chauvinism as well.

The fact that Muslim peoples can be enemies of one another does not interfere with their forming a We Group in opposition to nonbelievers.

Muslim solidarity against nonbelievers is in fact the central social norm of Islam.

From this arises the impossibility for Muslims of forming an attachment to a non-Muslim nation, unless it is restricted to formal legalities such as obtaining citizenship. This further illustrates the impossibility of Muslims forming attachments to non-Muslim groups. In their view, placing a higher value on solidarity with a non Muslim nation than solidarity among Muslims would be so immoral that it would be an outright impossibility.

Whether a society is “Muslim” or not depends on the political leadership.

For example, if Muslims occupied positions of leadership, they could regard Germany as a Muslim country. The German Volk, to whom they could then be loyal, would, in their view, consist of Muslims like themselves. The remainder of the formerly German Volk would then be mere Dhimmis, an ethnic and religious minority that they would tolerate and no longer consider “German.”

These traits endow Islam with an enormous collective ability to successfully put its programs through, especially against the degenerate West. It goes without saying that a society whose entire world image is built on We–You differentiation is certain to have the advantage in confrontations with a society that is unaware of such a distinction, and would even consider it immoral.

Islam’s contempt for nonbelievers, which is an integral part of their worldview, turns to hate when the nonbelievers are predominant.

Such hatred at present is not directed specifically at Germans in particular – in general, Germans are more popular in the Islamic world than other Western peoples. Instead, it is directed against whatever society happens to be in the majority, which in Germany happens to be the “Scheiß-Deutschen” (Shitty Germans).

At any rate a Muslim takeover is possible only because of the efforts of a cartel of elite international functionaries who have adopted and internalized a globalistic utopia. In the final analysis, this cartel constitutes the revolutionary party of the European Civil War that not only allows this process to occur, but is actively promoting it. In doing this, it is harnessing to its cart the special interests of the political Left along with minorities of every description. The minorities are serving it very well.

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.

Is the ICC entitled to arrest Gaddafi?

[This article was published on july 29, 2011 (when Gaddafi was still in power) in Korrektheiten: „Darf der Internationale Strafgerichtshof (IStGH) Gaddafi verhaften?„, Author and translator: Manfred Kleine-Hartlage]

Does no one really wonder about the fact that the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant against Muammar al-Qaddafi? Is he actually allowed to do so?

This court was established by the signatories of the Rome Statute to prosecute certain crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, aggression) to punish countries whose own judiciaries are not willing or not able to prosecute such acts; thus, classically, for the prosecution of government crimes and crimes of private parties in „failed states“ with no working justice system.

The public was told that the Court will be active only for crimes on the territories of signatory states, and certainly any state is free to join such an agreement and to give its provisions domestic legal force. Equally obvious is that no state has the right unilaterally to subject another sovereign state to its jurisdiction or to authorize third parties to do so. And what is forbidden to one state is equally forbidden to many.

Here, however, there is the first oddity: Libya, whose president is about to be arrested because of acts he has committed on the territory of his own state, has not acceded to the Rome Statute. The activity of the International Criminal Court in the case of Gaddafi is based on an instruction from the UN Security Council. In fact, Member States decided that the ICC will also be responsible for non-signatory States, if required by the UN Security Council in the individual case.

With the Rome Statute, the signatories thus granted to the UN Security Council powers which they themselves have not, and had this is a flagrant violation of a fundamental legal principle: „Nemo plus iuris quam ipse habet potest transferre“.

Moreover, Gaddafi is said to have committed crimes against humanity in terms of the Rome Statute. This term encompasses a range of actions, such as willful killing, torture, imprisonment and the like. Two things are strinking:

First, that such crimes are committed by many, probably the majority of the world’s governments, in particular virtually all dictatorships without necessarily having to face criminal charges against the head of government. The constitutional principle that all known crimes are to be prosecuted, is not applied, not even postulated. However, this principle is not valid by chance, but serves to prevent the law being misused politically, and being arbitrarily used against unpopular individuals. A law that is applied at the discretion of governments sometimes and sometimes not, is none.

However, this is exactly what happens here: The Rome Statute in connection with the illegal authorization of the UN Security Council hangs a sword of Damocles over all the governments of the world, at least the authoritarian, but just does not lead (and isn’t intended to lead to) a more democratic world, but rather to empower the UN Security Council to arrest unwelcome heads of government. The Security Council – these are essentially his five constant members of which the USA, Russia and China have not signedor have not ratified the agreement, and which are able to free themselves by veto from the prosecution by the international penal court.

Second, that Gaddafi has commited his acts, f.e. deliberate homicide, in the framework and for the purpose of quelling a rebellion, i.e. to enforce the state monopoly. This monopoly, however, belongs to the essence statehood as such, and that it must be enforced if necessary by force, is almost a tautology.

The arrest warrant against Gaddafi means no more and no less than that enforcement of the state monopoly has been declared a crime. The consequence is that states are sovereign only as far as it appeals to the five permanent Security Council members, and that the sovereignty of any other state is suspended. Suspended but not in favor of a global legal system, but in favor of a global tyranny.

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.

The Third War Against Germany

The crucial question to any Western conservative is why our nations seem to have completely lost their will to survive and flourish. The following text, first published by Judith in „Vaterland“, December 281h, 2010, highlights the methods with which one nation was made lose this will. So this article is not on German self-pity or on accusing the allied nations. Read what was done in Germany as a blueprint to be applied anywhere.

Translation by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage:

In his book „Die Psychologie der Niederlage“ (The Psychology of Deafeat), Thorsten Hinz calls it „the third war against Germany“:  The time after 1945 when after the bombs the psychological warfare started – a war that hasn’t stopped up to now. Hans-Joachim von Leesen names in his worth reading essay the institutions, the means, the methods and the compliant assistants.

The Re-education of the Germans as a Part of Psychological Warfare

Hans-Joachim von Leesen

The third war against Germany

[…]

„We will extinguish the entire German tradition.“

After the war Archibald McLeesh, then Deputy US Secretary of State, who had founded, in 1939,  the institution of the Psychological Warfare in the USA, at the Potsdam conference defined the aim of the re-education: to change the character and the mentality of the German nation, so that Germany, finally, a life without supervision could be permitted. This required inevitably  a treatment of the Germans comparable to that of a criminal in a modern prison. „We will extinguish the whole German tradition.“ At the end of this process, a German „Self Reeducation“ would have to stand (detailed in Schrenck-Notzing, Charakterwäsche, as well as in Mosberg, Reeducation).

„General psychic inferiority of the German human“

In the „Report of a Conference on Germany after the War“, worked out in Summer, 1944 by „Joint Committee on Post-War-Planning“ at the Columbia University, New York City, the timetable was found for the re-education of the Germans which became then an official directive on the American post-war policy. (reported in Mosberg, Reeducation.)

It was developed by scientists from the faculties of  medicine,
psychology, sociology etc.
The Swiss psychoanalyst C. G. Jung who belonged to the  spiritual fathers  had warned against making a difference between „decent and indecent“ Germans (cited in Mosberg, Reeducation). The Germans are  „collectively guilty“. The reason for this is a „general psychic inferiority of the German human“. In his view the Germans are „degenerated“. The only effective therapy was that the Germans were to be made recognise their guilt, and that they publicly confess being guilty  over and over again.

The Stuttgart guilt confession of the Protestant church of Germany

One of the first steps to this aim was the Stuttgart confession of the Protestant church of Germany (EKD). As the leaders of the German Protestant church which belonged predominantly to the „Confessing Church“ [Bekennende Kirche; a group of anti-Nazi theologians] tried to join the World Council of Churches that was being built up at that time, the condition was that they had to confess German guilt publicly. Secretary general of the World Council of Churches was of the Dutch Visser’t Hooft which had belonged during the war to the British Secret Service.

On the 18th/19th of October, 1945 the leaders of the German Protestants, from bishop Lilje and pastor Martin Niemöller to Dr. Dr. Gustav Heinemann, declared the desired confession, not only for the Protestant church, but for the German people as a whole, so, for example, also for the Catholics and those without denomination. (In detail the Kiel theology professor Walter Bodenstein in „Ist nur der Besiegte schuldig? Die EKD und das Stuttgarter Schuldbekenntnis von 1945/Is only the defeated guilty? The EKD and the Stuttgart confession of 1945“)

Press, radio, film

Over and over again, you are confronted with the re-educators‘ assumption that the collective guilt of the Germans had its cause in their biological disposition. This was to be imprinted on their memory until they are persuaded of it themselves. The instruments were the media, at that time above all press, radio, and film.

First of all, the media available in Germany  had to be removed. They were forbidden. The next step was to remove all men and women from public life who could have opposed to Re-education . Between 314,000 and 454,000 persons (the information in literature differ) disappeared in internment camps up to three years, without a basis in international law
and without accusation – from BDM [Bund deutscher Mädels = League of German Girls, Hitler’s girls‘ organization] leaders up to high ministry officials, from local group leaders of the NSDAP, to authors and diplomats.

The staff of the radio companies was dismissed, the leading journalists and publishers were imprisoned in internment camps. The German media were first replaced by radio stations of the allied military governments. What they had to publish was delivered by the occupying powers and their news agencies, in the US zone the DANA, later DENA, in the British under the direction of Sefton Delmer, a leading man of the PSW, the German news service = GNS. Newspapers and radio stations in German language were forbidden to publish anything but what these agencies provided.

After some time one loosened the personnel politicy and also hired journalists who were no emigrants, but were neutralised in the third Reich for political reasons. After one to two years the first editors trained by the occupying powers started working. (An impressive picture is delivered by the German first hour journalists Richard Tüngel and Hans Rudolf Berndorff in their book „Auf dem Bauche sollst Du kriechen“ that appeared in 1958.) The campaign in the US zone was headed by Leon Edel, later Eugene Jolas. The head of the press officers was the Intelligence Officer Alfred Rosenberg.

Strict supervision

The German journalists worked under strict American or British control. They had to implement tha strategy of psychological warfare. The crucial purpose was that „the Germans confessed their collective guilt, and that they were persuaded of their inferiority“, as Helmuth Mosberg writes in „Reeducation – re-education and licence press in the post-war Germany“ , his dissertation that also appeared as a book. „Every journalist had to be a reeducator“.

The German character is washed

In the long run, one couldn’t  feed the Germans only with newspapers and radio programs of the allied military authorities. Thus one searched for Germans who seemed suitable to run the newly founded newspapers. About that Caspar von Schrenck-Notzing reported already in 1965 in his basic work „Charakterwäsche“ which appeared again and again in new editions and recently in a revised version. The new German newspaper and magazine publishers should represent „the other Germany“, i.e. be people who differed from the present Germans clearly. Competence was secondary, compared with character.

The victorious powers assumed that most Germans had a wrong character because they had been shaped by their authoritarian families. What kind of men had to belong to the new élite had been worked out by a professional group of scientists under the direction of Max Horkheimer (we will meet him again as one of the mentors of the 68th revolt) and been presented in a 5-volume work „Studies in Prejudice“ , among whose authors were f.e. Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson, R. Nevitt Sanford. They wanted to uncover and to exterminate the prejudices from which the Germans allegedly suffered. Literally: „Extermination means re-education which is academically planned.“ With it „potentially fascistic individuals“ were to be uncovered.

Thus one searched for people in whose personality the values typical in Germany, like „externally correct behaviour, diligence, ability, physical cleanness, health and uncritical behaviour“ did not exist, because these qualities hide supposedly „a deep weakness of the own ego“. [No, this is not a translation mistake! The allied considered just such men qualified for leadership of German media who did not have these qualities. M.K.-H.]
The considered persons were asked, among other things, how their relation to father and mother was. One preferred men who had a broken relation to her parents, i.e. were not formed by the authoritarian German family. And they went forward with good conscience, as they regarded the Germans as ill, as patients who had to be cured of her paranoia. The new newspaper publishers and editors in chief were submitted to suitable tests, and if they turned out to have such broken characters, they were shortlisted.

So to speak, as a reward they received the licence for a newspaper or magazine, of course still supervised by the press officers. The new newspaper publishers avoided offending against the given rules, otherwise they would have lost the licence or their position. Most worked as requested, and even real beliefs played a role, as most people prefer being on the winnig side.

It goes without saying that the trials against the German ruling class and against supposed and real war criminals played a major part in the reeducation. The trial in the international military court of law in Nuremberg against the leaders of the Reich as well as the next ones of the American military justice were reported by the newspapers of the allied military governments. They had to make clear the collective guilt to the German population in all details, and at the same, to justify the allied war crimes as for example the aerial war against the civilian population.

Every journalist has to be an Re-educator

All these measures were in harmony with the main demand of psychological Warfare : to separate the enemy people from its leaders. This was already an aim of the allies in the First World War when the Kaiser was allegorized as a monster dripping with blood. All newspapers as well as the broadcasting company were subject to the principle that every journalist had to be an Re-educator. If he did not obey this, he ran the risk to lose his job. This explained not least the line loyalty of publishers and editors (in detail Mosberg, Reeducation). When in 1949 the Federal Republic of Germany was founded, the licensing of the press by the military government came to an end. But in the years from 1945 to 1949 one had educated a younger generation, which had passed through the school of the Re-educators supervised by the military governments.

This explains why today the German journalists,
though free in their judgment on single subjects, have to agree with some basic statements, f.e. the German collective guilt and Germany’s exclusive responsibility for the Second World War, however.

(…)