Archive
Categories

Archiv für die Kategorie „Islam“

Germany Attempts to Silence Criticism of Islam

by Soeren Kern

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Read full article on stonegateinstitute.org]

A Friday Sermon

MEMRI (Middle East Media Resaerch Institute) has issued a video and a translation of excerpts from a Friday sermon delivered by Egyptian cleric Ali Abu Al-Hasan, which aired on Al-Hekma TV on January 6, 2012:

Ali Abu Al-Hasan:

With the [Muslim] emigration [to Europe], and the unwillingness to get married and have children [among the Europeans]… A hundred of people there are succeeded by eighty, and ten years later, those eighty will be succeeded by sixty, and those sixty will later be succeeded by forty, and those forty will become ten a decade later, and twenty years later, not a single one of them will be left!

Europe has realized this. After a while, Europe will become a single Islamic state, which will know nothing but „There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His Messenger.“ This will happen whether they like it or not. This is the decree of Allah. Islam is coming!

Cognitive Dissonance and Political Correctness

by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage

[Original title: „Kognitive Dissonanz und Political Correctness“, korrektheiten.com, april 19, 2011]

 

The most striking feature of the socially dominant leftist ideology is the glaring discrepancy between its doctrines and visible reality:

It is obviously true that intelligence is heritable, that Islam is anything but a religion of peace, that men and women are by nature different, that western nations owe their wealth above all their own creativity and intelligence (and not „exploitation of the Third world“), that multiethnic societies bring about ethnic conflicts, that normal families are more stable than patchwork families, etc., and everyone – if honest – knows it is true. And yet all these assertions are marked as „evil.“ „Good“ is just the opposite of all this, i.e. the bare nonsense.

How is it possible that a system of thought of such a surreal remoteness from reality whose absurdity even a fool can see through does not collapse under the weight of its own ridiculousness?

This has to do mainly with the fact that it does not operate with the distinction of true and false, but of good and evil. Nobody even claims that one of the above statements is untrue, but everyone is taught that they are evil:

That’s what we learn in kindergartens and schools, from newspapers and TV, in the diversity campaigns of our employers, in the gender-studies courses in universities, from European Union directives and resolutions of the UN; that’s what we are taught by pop stars and athletes, and what we are told from church pulpits and read on propaganda posters (which are in Berlin almost as ubiquitous as they were in the eastern part of the city before 1989). Not even in the football stadium we are spared – there is simply no propaganda-free zone in our life.

Spoken in Freudian terms, the superego is ideologically manipulated to internalize the affirmation of certain dogmatic assertions of fact as a moral norm, and thus even as a part of one’s own self-description, because of course nobody would like to describe himself as evil.

At the same time each person is confronted daily with information that contradicts this dogma, and is even forced to act accordingly (e.g. by avoiding to confront noisy yobs with immigrant backgrounds in public transport, even though there would be no reason to do so if the dogmas of Political correctness were correct in an empirical sense).

The manipulated citizen is living in a state of permanent doublethink. At a certain level of his consciousness he knows things which he must not admit at another level. He is living in a state of cognitive dissonance; to reduce this dissonance he has to struggle against one of the two components of his worldview, either against the learned and internalized or against the actually perceived.

To the ruling ideology, this cognitive dissonance means a latent danger: The citizen will be persuaded not to trust his eyes and to prefer to adhere to political correctness only as long as the PC social monopoly of morality is not challenged. The more gets around that you are by no means an „evil“ person when rejecting the leftist doctrines and defend an alternative description of reality, the greater – from the perspective of the ideologues – the risk that the cognitive dissonance will be dissolved to the other side: i.e. that the dogmas are thrown overboard in favor of one’s own perceptions rather than vice versa. This is the reason why alternative, particularly rightist descriptions of social reality must not be effectively articulated. They are noticed only in the distorted form in which they are portrayed by their opponents, who do anything to stamp them „evil“. The stronger the tension between visible reality and the leftist dogma system, the more grimly the monopoly has to be defended. The militant intolerance we encounter every day is an expression of weakness, not strength of our opponents.

As long, however, as this tension does not lead to an overall breakdown of political correctness, its absurdity, from the standpoint of the ideologues, is quite functional:

It forces people to fight against their own better insight. Yet sometimes this insight gives vent to itself: At the latest after the third beer when they are alone and believe no one is listening to them, even liberal high school teachers complain about the „fucking wogs, don’t get anything“, and in a small circle a green top politician says she would „like to throw a bomb at Neukölln“. (Both quotes were reported by trustworthy sources.) Such breakthroughs of reality, however, do not lead to a change of attitude, but (because of the bad conscience about the fact that such realities at all perceived), to increased penitential exercises (at the expense of third parties), and therefore a intensifying of the „fight against the Right“. The hysterical fanaticism with which the remote-controlled gooder fights „against the Right“ is psychologically easily to decode as a fight against the own challenge by reality. In the „Right“ they fight what they fear within themselves.

On the other hand, it is just the absurdity of leftist ideology that allows a clear distinction between friend and foe: Since it is not based on arguments, but at a priori set moral claims, it cannot be discussed. You can submit to it or not. Whoever affirms the ideology has to make this affirmation known through appropriate behavior: gender-neutral language, distancing oneself from the „Right“, i.e. any people and opinions labeled as evil, avoiding words that are on the index, such as „Negro“, using ideological vocabulary. Such submission rituals are the equivalent of the Gesslerhut or the Hitler salute or the Islamic headscarf requirement: They differentiate the subjecting from the nonconformist and expose the latter to the firing.

And finally, it is just the ideology’s remoteness from reality that allows its use as a means of manipulation:

Since facts do not matter, and the ideological description of reality cannot be challenged with reference to facts, there is no standard for individual judgments. People who have been conditioned to confuse true/false with good/evil, are literally unable to make use their own reason.

The puzzled citizen thus depends on the changing provisional patterns of explanation offered by various „authorities“ – media, politicians, scientists. He grabs these patterns of explanation, even considers them to be his own, because otherwise the world that he believes to know would slip away. He is in the situation in of a lost wanderer, being offered a (wrong) map. Even if the map seems odd, he will suppress his doubts, because the mere existence of the map gives him a false sense of „safety“ he would lose once he soberly and clearly states that it shows a completely different area than the one where he actually is. The human mind is constructed to accept any interpretation pattern, and be it absurd, rather than none.

He will, for example, rather believe that a terrorist assault commited by a man shouting „Allahu Akbar“ has nothing to do with Islam (and has therefore to be attributed to poverty, mental illness, discrimination, special local tribal customs in the Thingamabob desert, or whatever ad-hoc explanation the media currently offer), rather than to accept the „evil“-stamped statement that Islam is possibly a jihad system.

But do not forget: As much as this helps cement leftist ideology, it is, at the same time, its Achilles heel. This Achilles‘ heel is what we have to target at.

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:

Interview with Junge Freiheit: How does Islam work?

Interview of the German weekly Junge Freiheit with Manfred Kleine-Hartlage, 25th february 2011

How does Islam work?“ This question is asked Manfred Kleine-Hartlage. For the first time a social scientist dissects the deep structure of the Islamic culture.

Interviewer: Moritz Schwarz

Mr. Kleine-Hartlage, how does Islam work?

Kleine-Hartlage: It is a comprehensive system regulating all areas of life. There is no separation between religion here,  politics there,  law there – therefore none between Islam and Islamism, either. Islamism is not an abuse of Islam, because Islam is different from our worldview.

[Read more on Gates of Vienna….] 


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.

The Jihad System or Is Islam Compatible with Western Civilization?

The following video is the English translation of the excerpt of a speech I made in november 2010 in Frankfurt, in which I developed some of the central ideas of my book „Das Dschihadsystem“.

As this is my first internet video, and I used only basic equipment, please don’t judge the video quality too critically. 😉

The German original video is available here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCtdId15tk&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL66D901554C592586

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.

Why? Reflections on the Oslo Massacre

[Originally posted by Manfred in German („Warum?“) in the blog korrektheiten.com saturday evening, one day after Oslo. Translation by John Haase and Kairos]

I suppose nobody of us will ever forget the nightmare of the 24 hours since a bomb exploded in the center of Oslo. The fact that the ensuing massacre was directed against children cannot be explained with political strategy and much less be justified by it. I have children myself. There is no worse fate for any parent than to lose a child. I grieve with the victims and their families and pray for them.

These relatives – parents, siblings, friends – and the whole public, as long as not busy with self- affirmation of their loved concepts of enemy, they have a right to know, how it could come to this. And I believe that the Counterjihad- scene can say more and more important things about it than the mainstream media, that can and will see no more in this horrible happening of July, 22th 2011 than a reason to agitate their own political agenda and that has an interest in silencing their own part in the processes that drive totally normal, peaceloving people into radicalism. We can say more because the assassin – so it seems – stood near the Counterjihad- scene with his political agenda.

It ist not cynical therefore, and of course no attempt to justify then murders of Oslo at all, to have a look at the political and social trends that led to the vicious attack. In fact, it is necessary in order to answer the Question that we all have: why?

We all depend on the bits of information of the media and I have to request readers to question these bits with scepticism and mistrust (It is not impossible that the whole thing is a “false- flag” action, put on stage for political reasons. If the suspect dies and it becomes impossible to clear what happend in an open court it would be a strong hint for it to be such a thing.). This said and therefore very cautios, we see – if we assume the official construction to be true – the following picture:

The assassin was a lone perpetrator (if the unconfirmed reports of a second man are true than it is probably a form of “folie- á deux´as we know from the killing spree of Columbine). He was a lone perpetrator in the same sense as the leftwing radical Marinus van der Lubbe, who ignited the Reichstag in 1933 was a lone perpetrator. The national socialists tried, as commonly known, to blame the Communist Party for it – at least this attempt was in vain (we can already anticipate that German media, following the sceme of 1933, will use the Oslo attacks to diabolize counterjihadism). The arsonist of the Reichstag came from an ultra- leftist milieu and his ideas were truly an amalgam out of anarchistic and communistic hotchpotches, but at the same time he was a cracked up loner who believed that in a hopeless situation – as the Nazis were already in charge – he had to change fortune with an act of despair.

Compared to van der Lubbe, who could state some form of political rationality (and did not kill human beings), Breivik is just a lunatic. The little we know about the assassin of Oslo – a “White Nationalist”, who wanted to unite the Right, but hates Nazis and admires Churchill, a “conservative Christian” who is a freemanson at the same time – emphazises the picture of confusion and desorientation that is already painted by the crime.

If it is true what they write, Breivik took an active part in the comment section of the islam-criticizing Norwegian website document.no until last october, after which he disappeared from the conservative web-community. The threads that keep internet groups together are much thinner than those who bind real friends to each other. Isolating himself from even these frail ties to other conservatives shows quite well that he was not accessible anymore for anyone who might have been able to talk him out of his plans. In fact, his obvious personality disorder indicates that he probably did not want to be talked out of it and so his final descent into madness began, which manifested itself so terribly on Friday the 22nd of July.

But his political views before this time, as we can reconstruct from the very little that has become known, are everything but irrational. For him the political front that mattered was not the one between capitalism and socialism, but between nationalism and internationalism. This is not far away from what I said myself in my analysis of the socially dominant metaideology that closes out all non-liberal and non-socialist, id est non-utopian political positions.

It is not insane at all to point out that the political, „scientific“ and media elites of practically every western country have succumbed to an utopian ideal, namely a one-world-utopia which is presented to us by its advocates as a paradise of harmony, peace, justice and tolerance. The truth is a lot less appealing: the path to this brave new world is paved with the dismantlement of our peoples and their nation states, the death of our cultures, and the outright abolishment of democracy and individual liberty. This is no crazy conspiracy theory of the rightwing lunatic fringe. This is official policy. Very often one only has to blow lightly on the ideological fog of war that is political speech today and the direction where we are headed becomes all to clear.

All for the greater good of course. And since those who fight against the good guys are the bad guys by default, this ideology and its minions know no tolerance for their opponents.

Since we who suffer from the results of the left metaideology resist the fruition of its agenda because we know all to well that this will end in a quagmire of chaos, violence, and degeneration, our resistance must be crushed: by limiting our right to free speech, by censoring the press, by exposing us to ever-present propaganda. By emasculating our still somewhat democratic nation states in favor of supranational political entities right in front of our eyes. And if all that is still not enough: by sheer force.

Whoever thinks that violent political action is abominable because in a democracy everybody is allowed to convince people of his cause by peaceful means does obviously not reside on this planet.
He lives in a media-created make-believe. In this dreamworld the constant and systematic violation of the political rights of the lefts enemies is either ignored altogether or even celebrated as victory in the never-ending „Kampf gegen Rechts“ (a state-funded campaign against the political right, the expressions translates literally to: „The Fight against the Political Right“. Hardly do I need to mention that „right“ is whatever the elites say it is). In Germany it is possible to denounce even liberal parties like „Die Freiheit“ (Freedom) and mildly conservative ones such as „Pro Deutschland“ (For Germany) as Nazis. This makes any kind of meaningful political campaigning virtually impossible. Worse yet, the elites present this antidemocratic orgy to us as a fight for democracy. It doesn’t get much more orwellian than this.

Any fundamental opposition against immigration, islamization, ever-rising taxes to fund yet another useless utopian project or the transfer of sovereign rights of our country to unelected European Union bureaucrats is drowned in a tidal wave of lies, insinuations and straightforward insults. This is not despite but becauce of the fact that said opposition represents the opinion of the majority of the people in every European country. This non-tangible majority must be kept from finding a crystallization point, lest it manifests itself politically. This is the reason for the „Kampf gegen Rechts“ (struggle against the Right) mentioned above and this is behind the agenda of the established media, every established political party, every official institution and the liberal ideological poison factory that we sometimes so flatteringly refer to as „the humanities“.

This makes it easy to unterstand why some people resort to political violence. If the government demands of its opponents to act according to the democratic rulebook but fails to do the same in return violence is the inevitable result. In the past, when the left was suffering from oppression itself it knew this connection very well. Nowadays, as they or their pseudoconservative or pseudoliberal substitutes are in power they prove beyond a doubt that power corrupts those who wield it.

During the last years, hate has steadily built up among conservatives, anti-globalists and those critical of islam. This hate is not hate against islam. It is a lie to suggest that we are racists who hate foreigners and muslims. Our hate is directed against a cartel of potentates who hold no regard for the democratic rules, commit treason on a scale never seen in the course of human history, and sacrifice the future of our children and grandchildren for the sake of their pompous ideology and even for their own shallow self-interest.

This explains why a radical islam-critic does not attempt to kill muslims but takes on socialists instead. My political horizon fails however, to answer the question why he murders children and not politicians. This problem must be solved by psychiatrists.

The media being an important cornerstone of the aforementioned power cartel will not discuss these issues. They will keep telling their lies, and the events of Oslo greatly help them to do so.

Yes, it’s true! The hate among the oppressed opposition is huge to the extent that it was only a matter of time until somebody would do something drastic. It is hardly surprising that the first man over the top is of rather unstable mind, unable to control his feelings. To put it bluntly: a psychopath. This explains the almost complete irrationality and insanity of the Oslo massacre.

One has to add though: sick minds will always find a cause that helps them rationalise their madness. Conservatism serves just as well as Islam or any other Ideology. Just think of the Sauerlandgruppe (a muslim terrorist cell of ethnic german converts who planned an attack and built bombs but ultimately didn’t cause any damage because their plans were foiled by security authorities).

It is highly likely that the German media will start demonizing the Counterjihad scene and everything else that is not left even more in the months to come. They will certainly detect the hate that we so abundantly feel. It would be pointless from our side do deny it. Of course, a hatefilled group of people is likely to attract psychopaths.

However, this hate is (except for the assassin) not the hate of men who succumb to a hate filled ideology for its own sake but the hate of men who would be pillars of society in normal times, but now have to witness the destruction of this society by treacherous elites.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he adds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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