Archive
Categories

Archiv für die Kategorie „Terror“

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.

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.

On the Oslo Attacks

from Kairos

First published on July 23, 2011 as Zu den Anschlägen in Oslo


Several Sources have claimed that the Norwegian assasin Anders Behring Breivik was Fjordman.

This claim is wrong!

Baron Bodissey of “Gates of Vienna” said, that the real Fjordman looks different and was in contact with him (the Baron) during and after the attacks.

http://fjordman.blogspot.com is an old Blog of Fjordman, Breivik has nothing to do with it.

It is said that Breivik suggested reading Fjordmans „Defeating Eurabia“ and other views of the assassin sound as if he was influenced by Fjordman, too. And they sound reasonable.

So the question is why the media replies them detailed. Is it to establish a connection in peoples brains between anti- globalistic, nationalistic and counterjihadistic views and a horrible crime? Because when they just have reported enough about views of the evildoer, then it will become irrelevant that the crime had no connection to this views. Then people will “know”: Nationalists kill children.

Probably in Norway a “false- flag” action took place.

No European Nationalist is able to slaughter innocent children! We are made a scapegoat!

Even nationalists who were radicalized by the horrible situation of our homelands and do not flinch from doing violence, would never assault children, especially children from their own country.

One can see it from this faked connection alone in what kind of spotlight they want us to be moved. They really claim that someone who is critical about socialism would be able to attack a holiday camp of the labour party.

That is just ill and disgusting!

Soon – we already know this mechanism – every questioning of the official version of the crime will be denounced as “mockery of the victims” and everyone who does not believe this version will be denigrated as “conspiracy- theorist.”

We cann assume that they will exploit the crime to drive a wedge between the conservative forces in Europe.

Every counterjihadist who will not immediatly condemn nationalism will be a suspect.

In fear of loosing their “reliability” and reputation many liberal counterjihadists and “clean- record”- conservatives will join the game and demonstrate their nonviolence and peacefullness at our cost.

http://fjordman.wordpress.com/ will not join this game.

We will not condemn nationalism, critique of multiculturalism and socialism, because this critique does not make us violent criminals. We will not condemn the real Fjordman because he has nothing to do with this crime.

And just for the record: Of course crimes as the one Breivik did (if he did it and this person really exists) are horrible and not excusable. Nothing is worse than harming children. But those actions we do not need to condemn, especially not by command of the Left. To condem such actions is part of the European tradition.

We will not allow that this cruel crime will be used as weapon against us and therefore we will just refer to this declaration every time one tries to.

Our prayers are with the Norwegians who lost loved- ones. We will try to help investigating this crime as good as we can and we will prevent that an inconsisting version of the crime is exploited as propaganda by leftists.

A request to the readers: Please do your best to send this text forth, mail it to your friends and put a link on sites you surfe

And collect every information about this incident. Since the first days and weeks there are still – according to experience –  some leaks. When they are closed no big chance to criticize the official version remains.

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.