Artikel-Schlagworte: „democracy“

Thorsten Hinz: State of Emergency

by Thorsten Hinz

„Ausnahmezustand“, october 16, 2011,

Translation by Google, revised by MKH

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

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

Budgetary rights shrinking to pro forma competence

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

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

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

Convulsions of the financial markets decide on the measures

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

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

Why we won’t bow and weep after Oslo …

… an Introduction to European Rightists

by Kairos („Warum wir nach Oslo nicht einknicken und rumheulen“, As der Schwerter, July 24, 2011, translated by Anders Denken with corrections by Kairos)


Since really not much new is coming out about the alleged attacker Breivik and the incidents in Oslo, the ideology that he allegedly followed, is now the focus of attention. Therefore it behooves us to delve into the various aspects and orientations of the right-wing spectrum.

Note in advance: None of the currents mentioned here offer an intellectual foundation for violent acts, even though that is being constantly asserted. No counterjihadist, nationalist or conservative, or even racist or neonazi should let themselves be heaped together with Breivik.
Such a thing clearly is not done with attacks from Islamic terrorists. One comes to the point there of considering how small a percentage of Muslims are actually radical and how few of them actually advocate violence with the result that the attacks „have nothing to do with Islam.“ Of course, „Islam is peace.“
When looking at the intellectual bases of Islam, especially the Quran, the conclusion is made that, in fact there is a call for violence against infidels, and indeed unambiguously and not just sporadically.
Michael Mannheimer created a excellent graphic to illustrate this fact.
Even if the act was not a „false-flag“ action – as one can guess alone on the basis of the improbability that the media knew everything about Breivik and the thinkers who influenced him –  even if the criminal had no psychiatric disorder but was a „normal“ right-winger, it still in no way proves that right wing individuals are brutal perpetrators of violence. If it proves anything, it proves only that the unbearable results of multiculturalism, coupled with the interdiction of naming them, can drive people to insanity.
We have already been accused of „mockery of the victims,“ as I have forecast, because we dared to question the version that the media present to us.
It is only a mockery of the victims, if – as in the case with 9/11 – the light is kept with all means possible from shining through the fog.
It has been told us clearly to our face: It is expected that we are ashamed to death because of Brevik’s crime, put on the cloak of repentance and wail like the witch’s apprentice over the spirits to whom we have allegedly sold our souls.
We will not do that! We will document the incidents in Oslo and analyze, but we will not allow the Left one occasion to tear us apart.
The extra step of distancing oneself from the monstrous act is not necessary, condemning it already is a given. But it seems very „practical“ that an alleged White Nationalist chose precisely that act that evokes the highest measure of condemnation among Whites, and that he appears to twist all of their nationalistic slogans talking about the esteem of children and hostility against people that harm children into punishable lies The one accustomed to defaming anyone right of the SPD (Socialist Party of Germany) as a Nazi would probably be shocked at the diversity of European rightists. They can be coarsely categorized into four areas. I am intentionally oversubscribe the characteristics of each scene here for the purpose of clarification; of course the borders around these areas are somewhat fluid.
1 Counterjihadism
2. Conservatives
3. Nationalists
4. Neonazis
Scene 1:
Many turn to the critique of Islam because they have experienced first hand what „enrichment“ (the former ministeress for integration of foreigners in Germany, Böhmer) really means. They have come in contact with „juvenile perpetrators of intense crimes,“ and have to watch as these individuals are either marginally punished or not punished at all for their crime; they live in a neighborhood that is teeming with Muslim foreigners and perceive the changes. Also, Islamic terrorism has made many people into counterjihadism, especially since the attacks of 9/11/2001.
Dealing with the Quran and the Hadiths, with Muhammad’s life and the Islamic Sharia law, in fact, a world opens up to us that has not only a foreign but also monstrous and misanthropic effect upon us.
Manfred Kleine-Hartlage presented in his book „The Jihad System“ a sound analysis of the intellectual bases for Islam.
Counterjihadists like to compare Islam with fascism. They treat Islam as a totalitarian ideology that destroys the lives of people. Geert Wilders said: „I don’t battle against Muslims, but against Islam.“
The objective behind the critique of Islam is that the Muslims come to understand that they are following a hate ideology and need to secularize. This, however, works only in exceptional cases because critique of Islam is based on false premises (it points Islam out as an ideology, as something that the Muslims could simply abandon).
There is not just right-wing, but also left-wing and liberal counterjihadism. Most critics of Islam are not right-wing in the classical sense and even place great value in this. Many advocate the position of the equality of left-wing and right-wing extremism.
Counterjihadism is openly pro-Israeli. Israel is looked upon as an ally of the West and against Islam. The United States and the „war against terror“ are also seen in a positive light.
Parts of Counterjihadism rise to the level of accusing the Muslims of things that aren’t even right. Their blindness as to problems with non-Muslim immigration serve as backdrop to this.
Most Counterjihadists don’t place the narrative of open European society and multiculturalism in question, but look upon Islam in its isolationism, its narcissism and its lack of willingness to compromise as an obstacle to the realization of the dream of an intercultural world.
Also, the Counterjihad has nothing against homosexuals, in contrast, they are cited as chief witnesses for the brutality of Islam (in Islamic countries, homosexuality is a crime).
Scene 2:
The conservatives don’t see „the West“ as endangered by Islam, but rather their country and people. They are mostly Christians and stand in theological opposition to Islam. Conservatives are outside the bounds of the „metaideology“ (Kleine-Hartlage) of liberalism and marxism. The two apparently contradictory trends are actually united in the assumption that the „liberation“ of mature structures and traditions is something good per se.
Conservativism then asks why things that have worked for centuries should be sacrificed in favor of societal experiments, it is explicitly anti-utopian.
Conservatives favor the classical family over homosexual relationships because the preservation of the nation is important to them. And homosexuals make no contribuation in the production of a new generation.
The conservative camp is divided about the question of Israel. Most neoconservatives are pro-Israeli, many traditional conservatives see Christianity as a child of Judaism. But in contrast to the counterjihad scene, in the conservative scene there are also critical voices against the Jews and Israeli policy.
Conservatives speak out for the rehomogenization of the European nations because they know that democracy can only function with a ‘demos’ (nation), a multiethnic population, however, will always get caught up in tribal conflicts and therefore will virtually shout for a totalitarian regime.
Some conservatives even cast a favorable glance toward monarchy.
Scene 3:
The nationalists define themselves no more with ideas and positions, but rather with belonging. The nations (and also the superordinate White Race) are presumed as natural founders of identity. That does not mean that they hate other nations. They only maintain that every nation will be happy within the borders of its own country and the insane experiment of multiculturalism comes to an end. The Americans stress the racial components here, the Europeans the national components, which makes sense in light of the different situations.
Nationalists aren’t hateful monsters, they are people who are consumed with love for their people and their homeland and want to defend them. Any Indian tribe in Australia’s outback is guaranteed the right to ethnic singularity. Only, the European nations are not, they are supposed to mix with others.
Why is that? How can the mechanism of „White Guilt“ be effective? Only through the implicit recognizance of racist divergence. If there is no such thing as races and nations, then we also don’t need to be ashamed of colonization and oppression (by the way, one can look up how slavery, which we abolished long ago, is still practiced by blacks and Muslims today. They, however, don’t feel any guilt). If there are races and nations, then it is our proper right to set ourselves in defense against the annihilation of our race and our peoples. The same applies for the special German cult of national guilt.
These contraditions can lead to cognitive dissonance. Anyone with eyes in his head can see what a monstrous experiment multiculturalism is. But to express this is taboo, as though the expression of this fact is the actual crime itself.
Nationalists are also involved in the area of historical revisionism, which counterjihadists reject and conservatives handle only with kid gloves. There are significant indications that we are being lied to systematically with reference to the course and foundations of the Second World War.
Most nationalists exceed an anti-Israeli point of view. In contrast to left-wing antizionism that is oriented against Israeli apartheid policy, the nationalist turns anti-judaism against jewish internationalism.
Ultimately, countless hints and statements have led many nationalists to look upon the „conspiracy theory“ of the NWO („New World Order“) as true.
The apparent goal of the New World Order is to replace the various nations with an easily controllable ethnical mix and ultimately to set up a totalitarian global state. There are countless documents to support this, many quotes from well-known people can also be interpreted in this fashion.
Scene 4:
The neonazis are not only the ones who actually worship Hitler, but also those who can’t imagine that the NS regime acted on purely irrational grounds. Any suggestion of rational motives is seen as revisionism and branded as trivialization and patently rejected. National Socialism ideologically fulfills the function of the scapegoat, the absolute evil.
Not only Hitler worshippers and Holocaust skeptics not scratch the surface of this historical narrative but even the one who suggests that Hitler and his followers had human motives rather than demonizing them, and the one who expresses vague misgiving that the division of a group into genetically evil, bestial war criminals (German) and heroic resistance warriors (opponents of Germany) is historically correct.
There are, of course, the true worshippers of Hitler who are openly antidemocratic. This could be interpreted (loyal to the system) as „irreformably evil“ or one can interpret this position as an answer to the many existential problems into which the democracy of the Federal Republic of Germany has fallen.

It can be conclusively said that there are many people to be found in the right-wing that have concerns about the future of our country and our children, good people whose wish is that we live in prosperity and peace in the future and who see that the nearly untouchable socialist cartel of the traditional parties and mass media have placed this in jeopardy.
Yes, the anger on the Right is great. However it is anger that the defense of our homeland, of our families, of our people – fundamental human rights – are being criminalized and chased down.
The American right-wing extremist David Lane formulated 14 words: „We must secure the existence of our people and the future for white children.“ These words are looked upon as evidence that Lane intends to enslave other races (compare Wikipedia, for example), a „white supremacist,“ who hates other nations and would rather annihilate them.
Substitute the „white“ with „black,“ or perhaps with „muslim“ or „jewish“ and you won’t find anyone who finds these 14 words offensive. If you understand this, then you have found yourself on the path to intellectual emancipation.
This is probably the greatest obstacle in the evaluation of nationalistic viewpionts:
One has to admit to being taken in by the left-wing establishment, having followed a diseased ideology as being self-evident, and having allowed oneself to be lulled to sleep like an idiot with the most insolent lies.
Keep in mind that a late-occurring intellectual emancipation is still better than chewing on the lies despite better knowing.
Time is not on our side. The name „Mohammed“ is now the name most commonly given to male newborns in most of Europe’s large cities.
I predict that non-counterjihadists and ex-counterjihadists will distance themselves from counterjihadism in view of Breivik’s crime, counterjihadists from conservativism, conservatives from nationalism, and nationalists from „neonazis.“
What can you do about it? Don’t distance yourself. The call for distancing is only an instrument of power. Recognize that the issue with the alleged „bad guys“ has to do only with the defense of their homeland.
I predict that other crimes will follow the crime in Oslo, committed by all sides. I predict that leftist and muslim organizations will attempt to gain capital from this crime, that they will use it as justification for „acts of revenge.“
What can you do about this? Support democratic rights, which party or organization does not matter at all.
Get involved with law and order, help each other. Don’t be afraid of your neighbour, rather look out for him.
I predict that we find ourselves on the threshold of a European civil war (we say „internal war“). Perhaps Oslo was a gentle flare-up like the street battles in Greece.
Perhaps we are already past the phase of „pre-civil war.“ The Euro will collapse and the national organs in all of Europe will lose the power monopoly in their territories. There will be ideologically, theologically and ethnically motivated battle actions.
What can you do about it? If I’m right, then the outcome can no longer be stopped. You need to gather provisions, consider proper methods for self-defense and either intensify the relationships with your neighbours or work out plans for fleeing (if you live in a large city, you especially should consider a rural flight).
Most of all, you can help by participating in alerting other people on the Internet in order to bypass the interpretative dominance of the mass media and present alternative forms of interpretating reality. Don’t be sidetracked by those who will call you intolerant, racist (and worse). If you are trying to defend your family, your homeland and your people, then you are on the right path.
Reach out to each other. It plays no role whether you have always been conservative or were left-wing up until yesterday. What counts is new solidarity that will decide between life and death.
Do not act aggressive to foreigners. On the contrary, be especially courteous. But don’t allow any insults or acts of humiliation either! Show clearly who this country belongs to! If you are attacked, defend yourself. If your fellow countrymen are attacked, come to their aid. Don’t look the other way any more!
And say, write, show the betrayers from politics, economy and media what you think of them!
And to the politicians and media cartel, we say only these words:
Just try and forbid!

Why? Reflections on the Oslo Massacre

[Originally posted by Manfred in German („Warum?“) in the blog 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 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.

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”.