Archiv für die Kategorie „Immigration“

Who is Delegitimizing Israel?

by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage

[Original title: „Wer delegitimiert Israel?“, July 6, 2011, in; translation by the author]

On July 11, 2011, the Jewish Forum for Democracy and against anti-Semitism organized a discussion meeting with the journalist Ulrich Sahm in Berlin. The title of the event was:

Current forms of hostility Israel: Boycott – blockade runners – mass rush to the borders – Unilateral proclamation of a palestinian State

The organizers outline the issue as follows:

„Classical“ wars are no longer fashionable. The Palestinian intifada and suicide bombings are „working“ no longer as intended. Fence, wall and other Israeli measures have an effect. Therefore, „warfare“ has been replaced by „lawfare“. The struggle against Israel is „fought“ in universities, the Internet, in the UN and in other ways on a global level. This unarmed struggle is intended to delegitimize Israel, damage its economy through boycotts, and to roll over Israel’s borders with mass rallies.

This is obviously the case. The Arab-Islamic strategy to encircle and cut off Israel from its lifelines had to remain toothless as long as only the Islamic world itself was committed to it, whereas it would become a mortal threat to Israel if Europe supported it, and indeed the Muslim infiltration strategy in Europe is aiming not least at achieving just that.

There is no effective defense against these forms of struggle against Israel. (…) For the existence of Israel and the prestige of the state even among „good friends“ and „allies“, this sophisticated propaganda war is a real danger, to which Israel is exposed almost helplessly.

This, too, is correct. The question, however, is: Why is there no defense? Why is it possible to delegitimize Israel and organize boycotts?

What is Israel doing that is considered so terrible? It maintains a powerful fighting army („Militarism“!), it is welcoming only immigrants belonging to its own people („Racism!“), has built a fence to lock out potential terrorists from its own national territory („Apartheid !“), and refuses to allow the immigration of millions of Muslims („Islamophobia“).

In short, Israel’s policy aims at preserving the political, ethnic, religious and cultural identity of the own nation, and is answered with exactly the same defamatory demagogic slogans Europeans with similar political views have to face. The principles underlying these policies are exactly the ones Europeans are expected to (and made) refuse, and which are supported by a tsunami of globalist, multiculturalist, liberal, and pacifist propaganda, re-education, and brainwashing. The result with regard to Israel is as I described it in a letter to my Israeli fellow blogger Lila:

You are rightly complaining that the Germans, and even more so other European nations, have too little understanding for your situation and give you advice whose realization would be tantamount to national suicide for Israel. Now I ask you: Our own nation is committed to a morbide policy of self-dissolution and self-destruction – how can you expect such a nation to have an understanding of another that is fighting for its existence? How can you expect a nation that is deliberately destroying the German character of Germany (and even believes this to be an expression of particularly high moral standards) to support a policy that aims at preserving the Jewish character of Israel? And why should nations who open their own countries to Muslim mass immigration agree with you when you deny the Palestinians‘ „right to return“, rather than to embrace them to play multiculti with them?

The propaganda, the boycott calls, the delegitimization strategy of the Palestinians against Israel could never work if the nations of Europe had not been trained to regard the consolidation of Western nations as something „evil“, and to abandon – for fear of the „Nazi bludgeon“ – their existential self-interest. Anyone committed to and propagating this kind of training is actively delegitimizing Israel.

Under these circumstances, it ought to be a surprise that – not only, but not least – just Jewish organizations are promoting this ideology in a particularly committed manner, and that they are using the bludgeon mentioned with particular frequency and aggressiveness against dissidents. (Let’s just remember, as one example of many, how the well-known Jewish representative Michel Friedman, like a North Korean show trial prosecutor, tried to push Thilo Sarrazin into the Nazi corner during a TV debate, just because he had rightly warned that Germany is abolishing herself. The obvious conclusion is that Friedman simply wants Germany to abolish herself.) There are a lot of major Jewish organizations actively promoting multiculturalism and mass immigration, although mass immigration in Europe means immigration of millions of Muslims, and although they cannot have an illusion that not only complete islamization, but even just the existence of merely a substantial Muslim voters block would force European governments to engage in an anti-Israeli policy and to join the boycott policy suggested by the Muslims, ultimately throttling Israel.

Maybe these people don’t deliberately intend to undermine Israel, but when in doubt they accept its destruction rather than accepting strong gentile nations. Anti-Semites tend to blame the Jews and Jewish organizations for being loyal primarily to Israel. This is obviously a false perception, and we would be better off if it was true. The emotional (and, as it seems, rather superficial) sympathy of Jews for Israel notwithstanding, most of them are by no means commited Zionists. Their sympathy for Israel seems to be limited by what they believe to be their interest as a Jewish minority in Europe and America, and, given the actual anti-White and anti-national bias of their policies, they would rather betray Israel’s interest than give up their destructive policy towards the white nations. (There is even a minority of mostly Leftist Jews actively condemning and fighting Zionism just because they entirely reject the very concept of the nation-state and don’t want their utopian globalist views to be compromised by considering the interest of any nation, and be it a Jewish one.) Whatever lip-service they spend or even true emotional ties to Israel there may be: They have made the choice not to sacrifice their petty, narrow-minded, and destructive minority strategy, but rather to sacrifice Israel. As a collateral damage, so to speak.

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]

Original Sound Islam

This video shows a Flamish islamist on a panel discussion with Filip Dewinter, leader of Vlaams Belang, an identitarian anti-immigration party. It is particularly interesting because of the effrontery with which this Muslim declares that you are either a democrat, or a Muslim, and that both is inconsistent and incompatible – something that is called „Islamophobia“ when stated by a European conservative:

Liberal and Conservative Criticism of Islam

A text originally published in German on („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.

U.S. Strategy for Europe: Re-education

First published as Die US-Strategie: Umerziehung Europas“ in “Korrektheiten” on February 11th, 2011, by Manfred Kleine Hartlage

Translation and Introduction: Kairos

The Jews pose a determined threat to the nations and peoples of the West. I am not being extreme or anti-Semitic, when I say so.

While translating this article I followed the discussion about Manfred Kleine-Hartlage’s response to Lawrence Auster on the Korrektheiten, Gates of Vienna and Austers View from the Right.

It is interesting to see how views of the German people are revealed that would automatically be regarded as “racism” and “hate” if proposed the other way around. A commentator posted the Latin proverb “quod licet Iovi non licet bovi” (what Jupiter may do is forbidden to the ox).

When a German would call the American (or the Turkish –or even the Jewish) people – the whole people – a “threat to the nations and peoples of the West” it would be “intolerable” and so on – my provoking first sentence is just what Auster said about the Germans. I just changed “Germans” into “Jews” and “anti-German” into “anti-Semitic.”

Some commentators denied American influence in Europe and even in the Arabic world.

Thanks to Wikileaks we got an insight into American foreign policy, and Manfred analysed this paper. In this text one can find proof of the aims of the so called NWO (new world order) that is not a conspiracy theory. As Manfred wrote on Gates of Vienna:

I think speculating about a „conspiracy“ is fruitless. I guess there are conspiracies, but most of the job is done openly. The „networks“ I refer to are well known: CFR, Atlantic bridge, Bilderberg, American Council on Germany and so on, and a lot of related institutions which don’t conceal at all what they are aiming at: You’ve just to translate their ideological phrases into plain English to see what they want. The co-ordination within this network wouldn’t work if there wasn’t an ideological basic consensus.

I think many American or British readers will reject the idea that the globalistic acteurs behind the NWO are the worst enemies to all nations, because they do not like the idea that their elites are criminals. Well, I do not like the knowledge about how criminal the cabinet of Chancellor Merkel is, either, because it is very embarrasing. But I dislike even more if one makes a fool of me as our politicians do.

And no one – particularly not Manfred Kleine- Hartlage, the author of “Das Dschihadystem”  (The Jihad System) – says that Islam was any good to us. But think about what this “religion” would look like, if we never had opened our borders for mass-immigration of muslims. Why should we even care what they do in their desert? Why do we have to secure our air traffic in a nearly maniac way? Could there be islamic terror in American and European cities, if there were no muslims who could carry out such terroristic attacs?

So, when you read this analysis, keep in mind that it is not the American people that is criticized, but the American government and several NGOs. An agenda, an ideology that will destroy all Western culture, if we do not stop it – and would destroy it even if there was no Islam at all!


As the author, I subscribe what Kairos says. I am well aware that most Americans neither know nor agree with what is described below as their leaders‘ strategy for Europe, and that this strategy is by no means in their interest. So when I refer to „America“ in this text, this means the ruling elites.

– Manfred Kleine-Hartlage –

Wikileaks Reveals a US Strategy for France

There still seem to be people who consider Wikileaks an overestimated enterprise of whose publications too much fuss is made. Such people could not explain up to now why the American government persecutes Wikileaks and its founder with such fervent hatred. Now, at the latest, however, everybody should know better: The publication of a strategy paper of the US embassy in Paris, including no  less than an American programme for an ideological and cultural pole reversal and forcing into line of France. This highlights the methods with which the USA subject entire countries — against the will of their people and behind the back of the public — to her ideological and power-political interest.

Up to now it was whispered only in the niches of the NWO-theorists and was dismissed by the published opinion — provided that it noticed it at all — as „a conspiracy theory“. Now that we have got a direct insight into the propaganda kitchen of the Americans, we should seize the opportunity to  evaluate the knowledge we won :

The paper is all the more informative as it comes from a subordinate office, namely from an embassy, which ordinarily does not elaborate political draughts, but implements them; and just because the author obviously does not find it necessary to explain the legitimacy of the aims and methods outlined in it towards his superiors, it is evident that he already assumes their consensus. We can assume that the strategy developed in this paper is representative for U.S. foreign policy, and that the USA pursue comparable strategies also in other countries.

In this context it is interesting, for example, that the paper deplores:

The French media remains overwhelmingly white, with only modest increases in minority representation on camera for major news broadcasts.

In Germany this nuisance resp. its removal was precisely an object of the „integration pact“ [between the Federal Government and Muslim leaders]. What a coincidence!

Interesting, however, is the implicitness with which the native French are characterised by the fact that they are „white.” For the Americans it is apparently quite natural consider this a racial issue – while the opponents of this policy, as soon as they state it, would promptly be accused of „racism“.

The paper shows that American foreign policy is designed to influence not only the current politics of its allies, but also the composition of their élites, with special emphasis on future élites. These future French élites are to be recruited and indoctrinated in a way that their ideology is compatible with that of the American élites. Whether it is compatible with that of the French people, besides, is second-rate; we will get to it. This has little to do with the usual methods of diplomatic influencing. Rather it is comparable to the attempt not to influence a person by talking to her, but by manipulating her brain.

Just the fact that this can be tried, namely without a sign of bad conscience or even awareness of a problem, shows that the idea of national sovereignty plays no role in the thinking of the American political élites. What was always valid for the much-cited „backyard“ of America, for Latin America, now also is valid for the states of Europe.

If we examine this text now with respect to aims, ideology, and methods of the American influencing, we win at least a partial answer to the question, why the peoples of Europe are obviously under the spell of a self-destructive ideology, and why this ideology is affirmed the more determined the closer we come to the centres of social power. It is not just a coincidence, but result of strategical influencing, that just the élites, whose job is traditionally the preservation and development of a community, do exactly the opposite.

Aims of the U.S. Strategy in France

The aim of this strategy is, in general, the implementation of “American aims and values”. What sounds so trivial that one would like to overlook it, actually contains explosive political implications. Such a phrase is far from being self-evident: Many Americans may not be aware of it, but the word connection “aims and values” is an American speciality. In the foreign policy think tanks of other countries one may also talk about values, as well as about aims or interests. But to pack both into one formula, is typical not only for that paper, but in general for the political language of America, and only America. Continental Europeans with their rather cynical approach to politics tend to consider this emphasis on values just a rhetorical ornament by which power-political and economic interests are decoratively disguised. (Most Europeans have been educated in a Catholic or Lutheran tradition, and the typically puritanical connection of faith and business – or “aims and values”, values and interests – is strange to us.) The self-evidence, however, with which Americans use this formula is not of the kind that expresses a trite phrase, but reflects a deeply internalized ideology.

As far as the political language of European countries refers to „values“, this happens mostly in connection with a concretion – democratic values, liberal values etc. But it would be extremely strange if the German Foreign Office spoke of “German values” and declared spreading them the aim of its policy. This is, again, a specific American feature. Whatever the mentioned values may be – and we will get on to which these are: They are expressively declared American values, which implies: One thing they are certainly not: French values.

To alienate a foreign nation from itself, its values and traditions, seems to be a legitimate aim of American foreign policy. Although the paper defines the aim as leading back the French to their own values (or rather to that what the U.S. administration regards as such), the very fact that efforts from abroad are considered necessary reveals that we are talking about re-education.

The motto is: If what is called “American values” is not universally accepted in reality, change reality! Whether the spreading “of American values” serves to promote American interests, or whether vice versa American power politics serve the spreading of these values, is as fruitless as the question whether the hen or the egg came first – in the same way it was impossible to determine for the Soviet Union  the relation of ideology and power politics by treating the one as a function of the other. It is about two components of the same politicial approach that support each other. Exactly this, internalized as a self-evident fact, is implied in the phrase “American values and interests”.

The Ideology behind the U.S. Strategy

The traditional American view of democracy is that there should be governments

deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Democracy means that the people determines by whom it is governed. However, the U.S. strategy is based upon quite a different ideology, as becomes obvious in Rivkins paper: Democracy is if all ethnic and religious minorities are represented in the ruling élites.

Not the fact that the French élites are selfrecruiting to an unusually high degree is the problem from the American point of view, at least not per se. For this there are arguable reasons: Whether one may criticise or justify it,  in all western countries „democracy“ actually consists basically in the chance to decide which one of two élite groups shall rule. It is the more remarkable what the US embassy actually does criticize:

It is no problem that access to active politics traditionally is refused to the vast majority of the French. But it is a problem that minorities are excluded, either. Implicitly, the idea of a people, consisting of free individuals with the same rights, is given up in favour of the idea of the „nation“ as an arrangement between ethnic groups; if there is not one people, but several of them in the same state, then they all must be represented. However, in this way the idea of democracy in the classical sense of the word is also abandoned. The hypocrisy of the phrase to help the French realize „France´s own egalitarian ideals“ or „of realising its respected democratic values more completely“, turns out here. It is rather about reinterpretation of concepts like „egalitarian“ and „democratic“ to something that would stand no chance to be consensus even in the USA – least of all in France; without mentioning this reinterpretation with just one syllable. Re-education.

One assumes that France is not not going to become a melting pot of the kind the USA – partly wrongfully – claim to be, but that especially muslims, but also blacks, will still reserve their loyalty in the future for their own ethnic or religious group. The access to the élite, according to the paper, should thus not depend on overcoming this attitude and identification with the French people, but is propagated as a right derived from „democracy“.

In this way, a society splitted in parts is raised to an utopian ideal and this just with the claim to prevent that France “will be a more divided country”. Newspeak.

Here, the amalgamation of the ideological with the power-political component of this strategy appears as in a textbook:

… undeniable inequities tarnish France’s global image and diminish its influence abroad. In our view, a sustained failure to increase opportunity and provide genuine political representation for its minority populations could render France a weaker, more divided country. The geopolitical consequences of France’s weakness and division will adversely affect U.S. interests, as we need strong partners in the heart of Europe to help us promote democratic values. Moreover, social exclusion has domestic consequences for France, including the alienation of some segments of the population, which can in turn adversely affect our own efforts to fight global networks of violent extremists. A thriving, inclusive French polity will help advance our interests in expanding democracy and increasing stability worldwide.

The French people must stop pursuing its own interests because the people of the Third World expect – as a reward for the acceptance “of American values” (and military bases) – the right to join without further ado every European state people without having to assimilate even culturally. What is the existence of the French people, what its rights, what its interests, compared to the uplifting view, “to spread the democracy and stability worldwide”?

One sees here how oversimplifying it would be to understand this policy only as „imperialistic“ in the narrower sense, which would imply that “the west”, or even the USA, want to rule the rest of the world; it is as much a matter of melting the European peoples (and white America) with this world and of establishing an order which allows this fusion. It is, well, about a new world order (NWO).

I’ve mentioned above what in the context of this order is to be understood by democracy. Stability means that there should be no more people which could  as a unity, capable of acting, elude this order, let alone even question it. As it is not possible to exterminate the human need to unite to groups, one shifts the formation of groups to the subnational level, turns the civil society into a society of tribes and immobilises these tribes by making their leaders profit by the fleshpots of the system. With that said we come to the methods:


The Methods of France’s Ethnic Change or: How to Make a Nation Commit Suicide

Tactic 1: Engage in positive discourse

First, we will focus our discourse on the issue of equal opportunity.

The same trick with which leftist ideologies always are put through. As well as the gender egalitarianism (gender mainstreaming), the systematic hermaphroditisation (dt. “Verzwitterung”) of the society is hung up on the subject of the „equal rights“ with which it has to do nothing at all in reality, a strategy of the re-education, infiltration and national disintegration is tying up to the realisation of a social utopia with the subject of „equal opportunities“.

When we give public addresses about the community of democracies, we will emphasize, among the qualities of democracy, the right to be different, protection of minority rights, the value of equal opportunity, and the importance of genuine political representation.

Propaganda to reinterpretate terms, see above.

In private meetings, we will deliberately direct questions about equal opportunity in France to high-level, non-minority French leaders. Rather than retreating from discussions involving two sacred cows in France …

Massive pressure behind closed doors so that no one gets the idea to ask where several changes, that seem to have happend on their own, come from.

…we will continue and intensify our work with French museums and educators to reform the history curriculum taught in French schools, so that it takes into account the role and perspectives of minorities in French history.

It is about manipulating concepts of history. As I wrote one year ago, this belongs to the core of the NWO agenda, “because globalism is the ideology of the ruling, and, among other things, this means that there may be no divergent concepts of history! Not only the historical facts must be indisputable, no, also the interpretation of these facts and the perspective from which one looks at them has to be the same – which, however, will not be the case as long as the nations themselves are masters of their history and its interpretation. For each of them the own concept of history is shaping her identity. History is for nations about the same thing as is memory for the individual:  the condition for understanding oneself as an individual, remaining identical with himself from birth to death.

A people which gives up its souverignity of interpretating its own history will sooner or later cease to exist. And, as I have demonstrated somewhere else, this is exactly what the NWO requires.”

At the end of this process there will be, presumably, history books like they already exist in America, books like this one:

Tactic 3: Launch aggressive youth outreach

Third, we will continue and expand our youth outreach efforts in order to communicate about our shared values with young French audiences of all socio-cultural backgrounds. Leading the charge on this effort, the Ambassador’s inter-agency Youth Outreach Initiative aims to engender a positive dynamic among French youth that leads to greater support for U.S. objectives and values.

Your values, this is the message, are not the ones of your forefathers, but the ones of America. I hope the young French remember that „Little Red Riding Hood“ is a French fairy tale, and put the question why this strange grandmother has such a big mouth, before it is too late.

To achieve these aims, we will build on the expansive Public Diplomacy programs already in place at post, and develop creative, additional means to influence the youth of France(…)We will also develop new tools to identify, learn from, and influence future French leaders. (…) We will build on existing youth networks in France, and create new ones in cyberspace, connecting France’s future leaders to each other in a forum whose values we help toshape — values of inclusion, mutual respect, and open dialogue.

A subtle brainwash of the future elites of Francem so that the mentioned “values” are implemented „on their own“.


Tactic 4: Encourage moderate voices

Fourth, we will encourage moderate voices of tolerance to express themselves with courage and conviction. Building on our work with two prominent websites geared toward young French-speaking Muslims — and

I wonder whether the Muslim readers of these blogs know about with whose minions they deal with?

we will support, train, and engage media and political activists who share our values.

They really leave nothing to chance. The future globalistic propagandists are put from the outset in the start holes for their media career.

We will share in France, with faith communities and with the Ministry of the Interior, the most effective techniques for teaching tolerance currently employed in American mosques, synagogues, churches, and other religious institutions.

Does the American people know that such techniques of mass manipulation are applied to itself at home – orchestrated by the government?

We will engage directly with the Ministry of Interior to compare U.S. and French approaches to supporting minority leaders who seek moderation and mutual understanding …

The French should get a tutorial in agitprop.

… while also comparing our responses to those who seek to sow hatred and discord.

Sounds quite creepy. As this is to be coordinated with the Ministry of the Interior, it is probably about the application of state instruments of power against dissidents. In Germany one calls such “Fight against the Right”, and here also institutions of the state and established politics take part in it – in harmony with left- wing extremists who are simple-minded enough to see themselves as fighters against U.S. imperialism.

Tactic 5: Propagate best practices

Fifth, we will continue our project of sharing best practices with young leaders in all fields, including young political leaders of all moderate parties so that they have the toolkits and mentoring to move ahead.

What is done for future journalists, is done also for future politicians. Some, namely the ones loyal to the line, are supported. The others will probably physically experience the results of the American exchange of views with the French Ministry of the Interior.

We will create or support training and exchange programs that teach the enduring value of broad inclusion to schools, civil society groups, bloggers, political advisors, and local politicians.

Many thin threads give thick gallow rope.

The ambassador saves his best idea for the end: the ultimative hope,

that they [young members of minorities in France], too, can represent their country at home, and abroad, even one day at the pinnacle of French public life, as president of the Republic.

Which would document the loss of power of the native French, possibly in such the way Barack Obama’s presidency had documented the “end of the white man’s rule”.










Doctor Schäuble’s governmental neuroses

by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage, first issued in German, October 1, 2009: Doktor Schäubles Staatsneurosen

If you want to know which ideology is the basis of this country’s immigration policy, it is illuminating to examine carefully what the responsible persons say about themselves. Wolfgang Schäuble, [then] Minister of the Interior, had recently in  „Welt am Sonntag“ a dispute with the immigration-critical Dutch sociologist Paul Scheffer. This debate deserves an extensive analysis. I concentrate on what Mr. Schäuble said, however I recommend  to read the whole discussion, not least because of the critical objections worth reading of Professor Scheffer:

Welt am Sonntag: Mr. Schäuble, since the fifties labour migrants came to Germany to a large extent. Is this immigration a success story?

Wolfgang Schäuble: Predominantly yes. One must realize, we recruited these people. Germany is, by the way, the country of Europe with the highest rate of population growth since the Second World War. On the one hand because of the refugees from the east and from the parts of Europe in which Germans had settled in former times. And then we received many refugees from conflict areas, more than other countries, for which the UN’s refugee agency praises us. We recruited the immigrant workers. Without them the economic development would not have succeeded at all at that time. Most are well integrated, but there is a not insignificant deficit in the third generation. Fighting this is an emphasis of our policy. But altogether it is a success story.

Paul Scheffer: (…) There is a consent in many countries that the immigration of immigrant workers was actually no success story. Neither for the receiving society nor for the immigrant workers themselves. (…) Also the migrants regarded themselves as immigrant workers and just not as migrants.

Schäuble: I must raise an objection. We have recruited the immigrant workers …

In these short both statements, Schäuble stressed three times that „we“ have recruited the immigrant workers. We will still see that this is so important to him because it means that „we“ are responsable for the consequences.

Moreover it is untrue (and promptly corrected by Scheffer) that without immigrant workers „the economic development… would not have succeeded“. Although untrue, it will be an important component of the self-description and the view on history in a future Islamic Germany:  We do not owe our economic development to the technological and scientific performance of Germans, nor to centuries of educational tradition, nor the high and consciously maintained qualification of our craftsmen, let alone all the sweat that the industrialization of Germany, starting from the 19th century, and the reconstruction after 1945 had costed. We owe it to the immigrant workers, who are so well integrated that one wonders why they did not manage to put this integration also into the hearts of „the third generation“, and why we suddenly have to deal with „not insignificant deficits“.

The concern about this is certainly more than balanced by the fact that „the UN’s refugee agency praises us“.

What does it actually mean that Schäuble regards the first generation as „well integrated“? This means that „integration“ to him does not include to raise one’s children in the spirit of a positive relationship to Germany and the Germans: If the first generation had been, in this sense, well integrated, the „deficits“ of the third would be hardly explainable.

I assume, for Schäuble, being „well integrated“ means not to become an extremist or terrorist. „Integrated“ is who does not cause trouble to the government. The trouble some migrants, particularly Muslims, cause to the native citizens don’t interest the government, as long as it does not feel the consequences itself  at the election day.

Schäuble: (…) We know that there are problems today , we know the deficits. Therefore our policy is completely clear: We will repair first the deficits of integration and afterwards open the job market more  if necessary .

Now he has used already three times the word „deficits“. We do not know yet which deficits he actually means, but we know that at least he knows them – how reassuring -, and that he (with „our policy“) is going to „repair“ them: the megalomania of a technocrat who it does not realize that humans are no machines and „integration deficits“ are no engine damage to be „repaired“. He ignores the fact that 67 million native Germans, four million Muslims and eleven million non-Muslim migrants and migrant children are no orchestra, waiting for being conducted by Mr. Schäuble, and that society is not an automat, into which one puts empty phrases (like coins) to see „ integration“ roll out.

In addition, and just by the way, we learn that thereafter, if something like integration will thus halfway have succeeded, one learns from the errors of the past not to avoid them it in the future but, on the contrary, to open the job market, i.e. to repeat them at the first opportunity . „Integration“ of the ones is thus just the preliminary stage to the immigration of the others. The Minister tells us officially, although just en passant, that he intends to make mass immigration permanent, and that he pursues a policy to urge the Germans in their own country into a minority position.

Welt am Sonntag: All migration processes of history show that the circular model does not work. If humans go elsewhere, then many of them stay. Did the problem in Germany not arise because we thought too long, the migrants would go back?


Schäuble: I found an understanding which corresponds to my own, of what immigration countries are,  in a book of a Dutch professor (laughs): countries which select immigrants. In this sense, Germany is no immigration country. I have always said so. This does not mean that we haven’t many immigrants. And therefore I rather talk about integration, because this is what we have to  manage. We had for example substantial problems with the integration of the [German] refugees at the end of the 40’s. 1949 96 percent of the refugees said that their relationship to the local population was not good. This integration has succeeded today. But with respect to the immigrant workers later we surely failed  to reflect sufficiently.

Compared to the magnificent achievement to integrate Germans in Germany the integration of Turks should be a children’s game – provided that one „reflects sufficiently“.

Above all, however, we did not well enough in the task to integrate their children and grandchildren adequately – this is where I see the large omissions of the German society.

Integration is not something the immigrants owe society, but the other way round – probably because „we have recruited the immigrant workers“, and owe them „our economic development“.

If I, however, say: The balance is bad, it was not worthwhile, then I strengthen those who tell me at the Stammtisch [the pub where normal people talk about politics, M.K.-H.]: „We always knew, out with the foreigners.“

In plain language: He cannot admit that the balance is bad, because otherwise he would strengthen those at „the Stammtisch“, i.e. simple people, who indeed always felt that immigration does not enrich anybody but the immigrants themselves. These simple people must not be „strengthened“, and therefore one must declare the truth they see a lie. One notes that the Minister does not even refer to his allegedly superior insight (what rulers normally do, if necessary to justify their rule). Thus he doesn’t claim to be right, he only wants to hold down those who are.

Welt am Sonntag: What was made wrong, and when?


Schäuble: … Since the 70s, we do not make immigration, but  integration policy in Germany. Good or bad, one can argue. We had a debate over the right of asylum, but that is something else. I also think that we must pursue, in the future, a more purposeful policy. But before doing so, I must do away with the deficits of the past years. In this respect, I do not push away the guilt from us at all .

„We“ – and one may assume that this „we“ does not mean the political class but the German people – are guilty to have caused the „deficits“ mentioned for the fourth time – he really speaks of „guilt“-, and therefore „we“ must do away with them, approximately like a dog owner has to do away with the small pile. The same people whose opinion is ignored have to lie in the bed that  the Schäubles made for them.

World on Sunday: Where do you see successful examples of immigration policy?


Scheffer: It must concern…  what Sarkozy calls “immigration subi” and “immigration choisi”, an only suffered or an immigration that one deliberately chooses. On this one must reflect.

Schäuble: Of course we think about it! But I am against wishful thinking. And before we think too much about selected immigration , we should concentrate on repairing the deficits. (…)

For the fifth time „deficits“ are „repaired“.


Schäuble: (…) I as a Minister of the Interior must prevent – that is reason of state of Germany – that new xenophobia develops.

The Minister of the Interior believes it is a duty of the state to forbid and/or prescribe  its citizens their feelings, for example hatred of foreigners. Such an attitude is not pre-democratic – no absolutist monarch would have considered himself to be his people’s teacher -, it is totalitarian. The citizens are to be made want what they have to do. And that is not only a governmental goal – which would be bad enough  -, it is reason of state, i.e. the state must „prevent that xenophobia develops“. Why?

I cannot bear, as one week ago in Vorarlberg [Austria], 25 percent for a right-wing extremist a party.

The Minister of the Interior, member of a „conservative“ party is not familiar with the difference between right-wing conservative and right-wing extremist parties. To consider the FPÖ extremist is obviously grotesque. To declare it extremist may be smart tactics – though not the tactics of democrats, but of autocrats who use the apparatus of the state to muzzle dissidents.

Anyhow one should listen attentively when a Minister of the Interior, head of a highly organized armed power structure, says he cannot  „bear“ an election result, brought about in a perfectly democratic way.

So high numbers approximately for Le Pen were the starting point for Sarkozy to concern on immigration. I cannot bear also the development in the Netherlands.

In plain language the message to the German voters is: Don’t imagine that you are allowed to vote as you want – certain parties offend what I, Schäuble, define as „reason of state“. How the hell does he come to believe it is „reason of state“ to weaken the predominantly loyal state people in favor of  migrants whose  loyalty to the state is pretty often doubtful?

Germany would  immediately be suspected not to have learned from the experiences of the Nazi period. We are, more than anyone else, a burnt child.

If I do not want to impute the USA to have threatened Germany with a military intervention in the case of a right-conservative electoral success: Soberly regarded, the suspicion Schäuble fears is no more than an image problem, i.e. nothing that would affect seriously the „reason of state“, if one understands „reason of state“ in its traditional meaning.

Schäuble: We had – and I am proud of that – with the European election on 7 June the smallest success of xenophobic groups in Europe. Our efforts on improved integration are thus not completely futile .

One could suppose with better reasons that less the efforts on improved integration were successful, but rather those on criminalization and slander of the dissidents, and that they were so because a great many Germans internalized that strange ideology according to which not loyalty for the own nation, but the self-dressage in favor of others is a reason to be „proud“.

(…) We must include in our demographic as our social development all people in Germany.

Except, of course, the native Germans, in particular such which express themselves at „the Stammtisch“.

Otherwise we will be not able to secure a stable, tolerant development. And because of the demographic development we will have probably soon a higher need of immigration.

I don’t remember that the indeed threatening demographic development of Germany ever has been put to the agenda by politicians. There were no election campaigns on this issue, and nobody struggled for solutions. But  the demographic development is put to the agenda regularly whenever arguments for mass immigration are lacking. In other words: Immigration is one, if only apparent, solution, searching for a suitable problem.

Let’s reconstruct now Schäubles ideology from what he has said between the lines:

He worries above all about what others think of Germany, not so much about what is actually the case, or about whether the Germans themselves feel good with his policy; the same orientation at foreign perception, (think of his childlike joy about the praise by the UN refugee organization) can be read off also from its panic, Germany could be suspected not to have learned from the Nazi period, and his “pride” about the lack of success of „xenophobic groups“ .

If an individual made himself dependent on foreign perception and subordinated his own interests to the demands of others, then this person would be said to be neurotically disturbed.

Let’s consider, moreover,

  • how frequently he stresses that the Germans are guilty,
  • his inclination to credit the Germans‘ own successes („our economic development “) to foreigners,
  • his view that political judgment of German citizens is to be controlled by the government,
  • and finally his program aiming at mass immigration as a kind of permanent revolution as soon as the current „deficits are repaired “,

this amounts, in the synopsis, to an ideology, according to which the Germans are evil humans, who, standing on their own feet, could only do mischief; who should be subjected, therefore, to supervision from abroad and above; whose declarations of political will needn’t be respected by politicians; and who are literally to be educated by their government. At least for the transition period up to their scheduled disappearance as a people.

Schäubles „reason of state“ turns out to be a destructive neurosis, and the Federal Republic of Germany to be probably the only state of the world with an ideology, according to which the reason of state consists in the liquidation of the own people.