Archive
Categories

Artikel-Schlagworte: „Europe“

Névroses gouvernementales de docteur Schäuble’s

[Machine translation. No liability for translation errors. Traduction automatique. Aucune responsabilité pour des erreurs de traduction.]
Comments in English, please. View original article

par Manfred Kleine-Hartlage, d’abord publié en allemand, le 1er octobre 2009 : Doktor Schäubles Staatsneurosen

Si vous voulez savoir quelle idéologie est la base de la politique sur l’immigration de ce pays, elle est illuminating pour examiner soigneusement ce que les personnes responsables disent au sujet d’elles-mêmes. Wolfgang Schäuble, [puis] ministre de l’intérieur, a eu récemment dans la « trépointe AM Sonntag » un conflit avec le sociologue néerlandais immigration-critique Paul Scheffer. Cette discussion mérite une analyse étendue. Je me concentre sur quel M. Schäuble a dit, toutefois je recommande de lire la discussion entière, pas moins en raison des objections critiques intéressant la lecture de professeur Scheffer :

Trépointe AM Sonntag : M. Schäuble, depuis les migrants de travail d’années ’50 est venu en Allemagne dans une large mesure. Cette immigration est-elle un exemple de succès ?

Wolfgang Schäuble : Principalement oui. On doit réaliser, nous a recruté ces personnes. L’Allemagne est, par la manière, le pays de l’Europe avec le taux le plus élevé de croissance démographique depuis la deuxième guerre mondiale. D’une part en raison des réfugiés de l’est et des parties de l‘Europe dans lesquelles les Allemands avaient arrangé en anciennes périodes. Et alors nous avons reçu beaucoup de réfugiés des secteurs de conflit, davantage que d’autres pays, pour lesquels l’agence du réfugié de l‘ONU nous félicite. Nous avons recruté les travailleurs immigrés. Sans eux le développement économique n’aurait pas réussi du tout à ce moment-là. Les la plupart sont bien intégrées, mais il y a un déficit non insignifiant dans le troisième génération. Le combat de ceci est un accent de notre politique. Mais totalement c’est un exemple de succès.

Paul Scheffer : (…) Il y a un consentement dans beaucoup de pays que l’immigration des travailleurs immigrés n’était réellement aucun exemple de succès. Ni pour la société de réception ni pour les travailleurs immigrés eux-mêmes. (…) Également les migrants se sont considérés en tant que travailleurs immigrés et juste pas comme des migrants.

Schäuble : Je dois formuler une objection. Nous avons recruté les travailleurs immigrés…

Dans ces courts les deux déclarations, Schäuble ont souligné trois fois que « nous » avons recruté les travailleurs immigrés. Nous verrons toujours que c’est si important pour lui parce qu’il signifie que « nous » sommes responsables des conséquences.

D’ailleurs il est faux (et promptement corrigé par Scheffer) cela sans travailleurs immigrés « que le développement économique… n’aurait pas réussis ». Bien que faux, ce sera un composant important de l’auto-description et de la vue sur l’histoire en future Allemagne islamique :  Nous ne devons pas notre développement économique aux résultats technologiques et scientifiques des Allemands, ni aux siècles de la tradition éducative, ni la haute et la qualification consciemment maintenue de nos artisans, sans parler de toute la sueur que l’industrialisation de l’Allemagne, à partir du 19ème siècle, et la reconstruction après 1945 avait coûtée. Nous la devons aux travailleurs immigrés, qui sont tellement bien intégrés qu’on se demande pourquoi elles ne sont pas parvenues à mettre cette intégration également dans les coeurs « du troisième génération », et pourquoi nous soudainement devons traiter « des déficits non insignifiants ».

Le souci concernant ceci certainement plus qu’est équilibré par le fait que « l’agence du réfugié de l‘ONU nous félicite ».

Que signifie-t-il réellement que Schäuble considère la première génération comme « bonne intégrée » ? Ceci signifie que la « intégration » à lui n’inclut pas pour élever ses enfants dans l’esprit d’une relation positive en Allemagne et les Allemands : Si la première génération avait été, dans ce sens, puits intégré, les « déficits » du tiers seraient à peine explicables.

Je suppose, pour Schäuble, étant » des moyens intégrés « bons de ne pas devenir un extrémiste ou un terroriste. « A intégré » est qui ne cause pas le problème au gouvernement. La difficulté quelques migrants, en particulier musulmans, cause aux citoyens indigènes n’intéressent pas le gouvernement, tant que elle ne sent pas les conséquences elle-même au jour d’élection.

(…)
Schäuble : (…) Nous savons qu’il y a des problèmes aujourd’hui, nous connaissons les déficits. Par conséquent notre politique est complètement claire : Nous réparerons d’abord les déficits de l’intégration et ouvrirons après le marché du travail plus s’il y a lieu.

Maintenant il a employé déjà trois fois les déficits de „de mot « . Nous ne savons pas encore que les déficits il signifie réellement, mais nous savons qu’au moins il les connaît – comment rassurant -, et qu’il (avec le „notre politique „) va au „réparez-« les : la mégalomanie d’un technocrate qu’elle ne se rend pas compte que les humains ne sont aucune machine et des « déficits d’intégration » ne sont aucun dommage de moteur pour être „réparé « . Il ignore le fait que 67 millions d’Allemands indigènes, quatre millions de musulmans et onze millions de migrants de non-Musulmans et enfants migrants ne sont aucun orchestre, attendant l’conduite par M. Schäuble, et que la société n’est pas un distributeur automatique, dans lesquels met des expressions vides (comme des pièces de monnaie) déroulement pour voir de „intégration « .

En outre, et juste par la manière, nous apprenons qu’ensuite, si quelque chose comme l’intégration aura à mi-chemin réussi ainsi, on apprend des erreurs du passé à ne pas les éviter il à l’avenir mais, au contraire, à ouvrir le marché du travail, c.-à-d. pour les répéter à la première occasion. La « intégration » de celle est ainsi juste l’étape préliminaire à l’immigration des autres. Le ministre nous dit officiellement, bien que juste en passant, qu‘il a l’intention de faire la constante d’immigration massive, et qu’il poursuit une politique pour pousser les Allemands dans leur propre pays dans une position de minorité.

Trépointe AM Sonntag : Tous les procédés de migration de l’histoire prouvent que le modèle circulaire ne fonctionne pas. Si les humains vont ailleurs, alors bon nombre d’entre eux séjour. Est-ce que problème en Allemagne n’a-t-il pas surgi parce que nous avons pensé trop longtemps, les migrants retournerait ?

(…)

Schäuble : J’ai trouvé une compréhension qui correspond à mes propres moyens, de quels pays d’immigration sont, dans un livre d’un professeur néerlandais (rires) : pays qui choisissent des immigrés. Dans ce sens, l’Allemagne n’est aucun pays d’immigration. J’ai toujours dit ainsi. Ceci ne signifie pas que nous n’avons pas beaucoup d’immigrés. Et donc je parle plutôt de l’intégration, parce qu’est ce ce que nous devons contrôler. Nous avons eu par exemple des problèmes substantiels avec l’intégration [des réfugiés d‘Allemand] à l‘extrémité 40 du ′ S. 1949 que 96 pour cent des réfugiés ont dit que leurs relations à la population locale n’étaient pas bonnes. Cette intégration a réussi aujourd’hui. Mais en ce qui concerne les travailleurs immigrés plus tard nous avons sûrement échoué pour nous refléter suffisamment.

Comparé à l’accomplissement magnifique pour intégrer des Allemands en Allemagne l’intégration des Turcs devrait être un jeu d’enfants – à condition que on « se reflète suffisamment ».

Surtout, cependant, nous n’avons pas fait assez bien dans la tâche d’intégrer leurs enfants et petits-enfants en juste proportion – c’est où je vois les grandes omissions de la société allemande.

L’intégration n’est pas quelque chose que les immigrés doivent la société, mais le contraire – probablement parce que « nous avons recruté les travailleurs immigrés », et leur doit « notre développement économique ».

Si I, cependant, indiquent : L’équilibre est mauvais, il n’était pas valable, puis je renforce ceux qui me disent chez le Stammtisch [le bar où les personnes normales parlent de la politique, M.K. – H.] : « Nous avons toujours su, avec les étrangers. »

Dans le langage clair : Il ne peut pas admettre que l’équilibre est mauvais, parce qu’autrement il renforcerait ceux au „le Stammtisch « , c.-à-d. les personnes simples, qui ont en effet toujours estimé que l’immigration n’enrichit pas quiconque mais les immigrés elles-mêmes. Ces personnes simples ne doivent pas « être renforcées », et donc on doit déclarer la vérité qu’elles voient un mensonge. On note que le ministre ne se réfère pas même à son analyse allégué supérieure (quelles règles font normalement, s’il y a lieu pour justifier leur règle). Ainsi il ne prétend pas avoir raison, il veut seulement maintenir ceux qui sont.

Trépointe AM Sonntag : Ce qu’a été fait mal, et quand ?

(…)

Schäuble : … Depuis les années 70, nous ne définissons pas l’immigration, mais la politique d’intégration en Allemagne. Bon ou mauvais, on peut discuter. Nous avons eu une discussion au-dessus du droit d’asile, mais c’est autre chose. Je pense également que nous devons poursuivre, à l’avenir, une politique plus utile. Mais avant de faire ainsi, je dois éliminer les déficits des dernières années. À cet égard, je n’éloigne pas la culpabilité de nous du tout.

« Nous » – et on peut supposer que ceci « nous » ne signifie pas la classe politique mais les personnes allemandes – sommes coupables pour avoir causé les « déficits » mentionnés pour la quatrième fois – il parle vraiment de la « culpabilité » -, et donc « nous » devons les éliminer, approximativement comme un chien que le propriétaire doit éliminer la petite pile. Les mêmes personnes dont l’opinion est ignorée doivent se situer dans le lit que le Schäubles a fait pour elles.

Monde dimanche : Où voyez-vous des exemples réussis de la politique sur l’immigration ?

(…)

Scheffer : Il doit concerner… ce que Sarkozy appelle le « subi d’immigration » et le « choisi d’immigration », seule soufferte ou une immigration qu’on choisit délibérément. Sur celui-ci doit se refléter.

Schäuble : Naturellement nous pensons cela ! Mais je suis contre le rêve. Et avant que nous pensions trop à l’immigration choisie, nous devrions nous concentrer sur réparer les déficits. (…)

Pour la cinquième fois des « déficits » « sont réparés ».

(…)

Schäuble : (…) I comme un ministre de l’intérieur doit empêcher – qui est raison d’état de l’Allemagne – que la nouvelle xénophobie se développe.

Le ministre de l’intérieur croit que c’est un devoir de l’état pour interdire et/ou prescrire ses citoyens leurs sentiments, par exemple haine des étrangers. Une telle attitude n’est pas pré-démocratique – aucun monarque absolutiste ne se serait considéré comme étant le professeur de ses personnes -, il est totalitaire. Les citoyens doivent être faits veulent ce qu’ils doivent faire. Et c’est non seulement un but gouvernemental – qui serait assez mauvais -, il est raison d’état, c.-à-d. l’état doit « empêcher que la xénophobie se développe ». Pourquoi ?

Je ne peux pas soutenir, en tant qu’il y a une semaine dans Vorarlberg [Autriche], 25 pour cent pour un extrémiste de droite une partie.

Le ministre de l’intérieur, membre d’une partie « conservatrice » n’est pas au courant de la différence entre les partis extrémistes conservateurs et de droite de droite. Pour considérer l’extrémiste de FPÖ est évidemment grotesque. Pour le déclarer extrémiste peut être la tactique futée – cependant pas la tactique des démocrates, mais des autocrates qui utilisent l’appareil de l’état pour museler des dissidents.

De toute façon un devrait écouter attentivement quand un ministre de l’intérieur, chef d’une répartition des pouvoirs armée fortement organisée, dit qu’il ne peut pas » soutenir » un résultat électoral, provoqué d’une manière parfaitement démocratique.

Les nombres tellement élevés approximativement pour Le Pen étaient le point de départ pour que Sarkozy concerne sur l’immigration. Je ne peux pas soutenir également le développement aux Pays-Bas.

Dans le langage clair le message aux électeurs allemands est : N’imaginez pas que vous êtes permis de voter pendant que vous voulez – certaines parties offensent ce qu’I, Schäuble, définissent en tant que « raison d’état ». Comment l’enfer vient-il pour le croire est-il de la « raison de l’état » d’affaiblir les personnes principalement loyales d’état en faveur des migrants dont la fidélité à l’état est assez souvent douteuse ?

On suspecterait l’Allemagne immédiatement pour ne pas avoir appris des expériences de la période nazie. Nous sommes, plus que n’importe qui d’autre, un enfant brûlé.

Si je ne veux pas imputer les Etats-Unis pour avoir l’Allemagne menacée avec une intervention militaire dans le cas d’un succès électoral droit-conservateur : Sobre considérées, les craintes de Schäuble de soupçon n’est pas plus qu’un problème d’image, c.-à-d. rien qui affecterait sérieusement la « raison de l’état », si on comprend la « raison de l’état » dans sa signification traditionnelle.

Schäuble : Nous avons eu – et je suis fier de que – avec l’élection européenne le 7 juin le plus petit succès des groupes xénophobiques en Europe. Nos efforts sur l’intégration améliorée ne sont ainsi pas complètement futiles.

On pourrait supposer avec de meilleures raisons pour laquelle moins les efforts sur l’intégration améliorée étaient réussis, mais avec plutôt ceux sur la criminalisation et la calomnie des dissidents, et qu’ils étaient ainsi parce qu’un grand beaucoup d’Allemands a internalisé cette idéologie étrange selon laquelle pas la fidélité pour posséder la nation, mais l’auto-dressage en faveur d’autres est une raison d’être « fière ».

(…) Nous devons inclure dans notre démographique en tant que notre développement social toutes les personnes en Allemagne.

Excepté, naturellement, les Allemands indigènes, en particulier tels qui s’expriment au „le Stammtisch « .

Autrement nous pourrons fixer un développement stable et tolérant. Et en raison de l’évolution démographique nous aurons probablement bientôt un besoin plus élevé de l’immigration.

Je ne me rappelle pas que l’évolution démographique menaçante en effet de l’Allemagne jamais a été mise à l’ordre du jour par des politiciens. Il n’y avait aucune campagne électorale sur cette question, et personne n’a lutté pour des solutions. Mais l’évolution démographique est mise à l’ordre du jour régulièrement toutes les fois que les arguments pour l’immigration massive manquent. En d’autres termes : L’immigration est une, si seulement évidente, solution, recherchant un problème approprié.

Reconstruisons maintenant l’idéologie de Schäubles de ce qu’il a dit entre les lignes :

Il s’inquiète surtout de ce que d’autres pensent à l’Allemagne, pas tellement de ce qu’est réellement le cas, ou au sujet de si les Allemands eux-mêmes se sentent bien avec sa politique ; on pourrait suspecter la même orientation à la perception étrangère, (pensez à sa joie enfantine à l’éloge par l’organisation de réfugié de l‘ONU) peut être lue également de sa panique, Allemagne pour ne pas avoir appris de la période nazie, et de sa « fierté » au sujet du manque de succès « des groupes xénophobiques ».

Si une personne se rendait dépendant de la perception étrangère et subordonnait ses propres intérêts aux exigences d’autres, alors on dirait que cette personne est de manière névrotique dérangée.

Considérons, d’ailleurs,

  • comment fréquemment il soumet à une contrainte que les Allemands sont coupables,
  • son inclination de créditer les Allemands‘ pour posséder des succès („notre développement économique „) aux étrangers,
  • sa vue que le jugement politique des citoyens allemands doit être commandé par le gouvernement,
  • et finalement son programme visant l’immigration massive comme genre de révolution permanente dès que les déficits actuels de „seront réparés « ,

ceci s’élève, dans la synthèse, à une idéologie, selon laquelle les Allemands sont des humains mauvais, qui, se tenant sur leurs propres pieds, pourrait seulement faire le préjudice ; qui devrait être soumis, donc, à la surveillance de l’étranger et en haut ; quel déclarations de la volonté politique n’ont pas besoin d’être respectées par des politiciens ; et qui doivent littéralement être instruits par leur gouvernement. Au moins pour la période de transition jusqu’à leur disparition programmée en tant que peuple.

Schäubles « raison d’état » s’avère être une névrose destructive, et la république Fédérale d’Allemagne d’être probablement le seul état du monde avec une idéologie, selon laquelle la raison de l’état consiste en liquidation de pour posséder des personnes.

Diesen Beitrag weiterlesen »

D’un point de vue allemand : une réponse à Lawrence Auster

Machine translation. No liability for translation errors. Traduction automatique. Aucune responsabilité pour des erreurs de traduction.

Comments in English, please. View original article

[Cet article, avec une introduction de baron Bodissey, a été également édité dans des portes de Vienne]

Au 6 mai, Lawrence Auster a signalé un commentaire sur la réaction du ` s de l’Allemagne sur la mort du ` s de Ben Laden – un commentaire accentuant soudainement des tensions politiques plus de nous ne se rendent normalement pas compte de. Je pense qu’il est intéressant d’examiner l’argument du ` s de M. Auster pour faire clairement la nature de ces tensions, et ce qu’elles pourraient signifier au Counterjihad.

Le point de départ du ` s d’Auster est que le chancelier Angela Merkel a été criminel facturé exprimer le plaisir au-dessus de la cession du ` s de Ben Laden. Il cite alors un scrutin selon quel „64 pour cent d’Allemands ne voient pas la mort d’Oussama Ben Laden car quelque chose être célébré « . À Auster, ceci indique la mort spirituelle de „« apportée sur le „de l‘Allemagne par à application cohérente de libéralisme « .

Il y a quelques points que le ` t de doesn d’Auster semblent comprendre : Tout d’abord, la question n’était pas si la mort du ` s de Ben Laden était bonne ou mauvaise, mais si on devrait la célébrer. En Allemagne, beaucoup de terroristes ont été tués par des forces de sécurité pendant des dernières décennies, et certains ont commis le suicide en prison. A en aucun cas fait une satisfaction exprès ou un plaisir de gouvernement allemand à son sujet, et en aucun cas il y avait des célébrations publiques de la sorte que nous sommes témoin maintenant en Amérique. Célébrant n’importe qui la mort du ` s, et que ce soit celui d’un ennemy, est considérée undecent en Allemagne, et donc, la déclaration du ` s de Mme Merkel était au moins gaffe embarrassante, indépendamment de, qu’il ait été illégal ou pas. Il ` s quelque chose qui n’est pas simplement faite dans ce pays.

 

Je mets M. Auster de blâme du ` t pour ne pas savoir et ne comprenant pas les coutumes d’un pays étranger, je pense juste qu’il devrait être peu disposé à juger ce qu’il le ` t de doesn comprennent.

Jusqu’à présent, c’a été juste un désaccord mineur entre la plupart des Allemands d’une part et la plupart des Américains de l’autre. Etant donné l’inapplicabilité de ce que nous parlons, il est plus consternant qu’Auster saisit cette occasion de déclencher une avalanche de haine et de préjudice contre l’Allemagne, commençant par

Et par la manière, pourquoi maintenons-nous 50.000 troupes des États-Unis, à un coût de milliards par année, dans cette terre morte ? Dans quel but, autre qu’alimenter leur économie, qui s’avère justement être la plus grande en Europe ?

Bien, ils ne sont pas ici pour protéger l’Allemagne contre des invasions. En effet, nous sommes envahis, car n’importe quelle nation européenne est, mais les États-Unis sont le dernier pays qui voudrait nous protéger contre que – nous prendrons ce point ci-dessous. Les États-Unis ont des bases en Allemagne parce que nous des forces dans le Moyen-Orient sont fournis d’ici (et des personnes enlevées sont diffusées d’ici aux prisons secrètes de CIA dans le monde entier).

Pensez juste, si les traceurs d’anti-Hitler en 1944 avaient réussi à le tuer, et si un certain chef allemand avait exprimé sa joie, ce juge allemand, si traduit de nouveau à 1944, chercherait à le punir. Je devine que l’Allemagne n’a pas changé tellement après tout, hmm ? Le libéralisme pur, que les Allemands dans leur minutie fanatique sans humour aspirent à comme opposé de totalitarisme nazi, est une autre forme de totalitarisme. Et de la même manière, comme j’ai souvent remarqué, l’opposé transnational Allemand-soutenu du nationalisme nazi qui a cherché à détruire les nations de l‘Europe, détruit également les nations de l‘Europe. D’une manière ou d’une autre, si sous leur forme nazie ou sous leur forme hyper-libérale, les Allemands constituent une menace déterminée pour les nations et les peuples de l’ouest. Pour paraphraser la remarque célèbre de Churchill au sujet des Allemands, ils doivent être maintenus à nos pieds, ou bien ils iront chercher notre gorge.

Et il ajoute

Je ne suis pas extrême ou « anti-Allemand » quand je dis cela.

ce qui prouve en effet qu’il humourlessness d’Allemand de part du ` t de doesn.

Les Allemands sont d’accord avec moi. Ils se voient comme menace pour d’autres. C’est pourquoi ils disent que l‘UE est nécessaire, pour les maintenir, les Allemands jamais-menaçants, dans le contrôle.

Beaucoup d’Allemands parlent ainsi, parce qu‘ils ont été dits pour parler et penser de telles choses. On leur a enseigné à considérer mille ans d’histoire allemande juste comme une préhistoire d’Hitler. On leur a enseigné à considérer leur histoire comme simplement une histoire des crimes. On leur a enseigné qu’ils sont un danger à d’autres. On leur a enseigné que le nationalisme de patriotisme et de „« sont la même chose, et que ce dernier est la racine de tous les maux dans le monde. On leur a enseigné à se détester.

Il a commencé par la rééducation à partir de 1945 dessus, et cette rééducation continue toujours. Pour empoisonner une nation entière avec haine de soi avérée pour être un concept fonctionnant, et ce concept, une fois qu’avec succès appliqué, a été généralisé au monde occidental dans son ensemble, et comme le concept de la culpabilité blanche de „« mine maintenant notre civilisation. Ce n’est rien que vous devriez blâmer les Allemands de. Ils étaient juste les cobayes.

La million-dollar-question est : Pourquoi est-ce que ceci est fait, et qui fait ainsi ?

M. Auster ne peut pas comprendre beaucoup au sujet de l’Allemagne, mais il a tout à fait correctement compris que nous mettons la part du ` t les sentiments du triomphe sur la mort du ` s de Ben Laden – non due à l’apaisement, ou le libéralisme, ou la décadence, et non seulement en raison d’un concept allemand spécial de decence décrit ci-dessus. Il peut être choquant à certains, mais même aux counterjihadists militants comme je met la part du ` t il.

Oui, Ben Laden était notre ennemi, mais sur la liste de nos ennemis il n’était pas le numéro un, et pas le nombre pair dix. L’Islam marche en avant en Europe pas par terrorisme, mais par l’immigration et la lutte ethnique, avec le soutien important des élites politiques internationales. Il ne semble aucun raisonnable d’affirmer une différence entre les élites américaines et européennes, parce qu’elles toutes appartiennent à un réseau transatlantique centré dedans, mais non confiné à, l’Amérique. Dans ce réseau, des stratégies sont rendues compatibles les uns avec les autres, de sorte qu’il n’y ait aucune une telle chose comme une politique strictement nationale. Il y a des désaccords sur des questions mineures, mais la direction générale est vers établir une civilisation uniforme globale. L‘UE fait partie de ce processus, et un analyste blâmant juste l’Allemagne du ce, comme le fait Auster,

Le problème est que l‘UE dirigée par allemand qui dans l’esprit allemand est visée supprimant la nation allemande, doit supprimer toutes autres nations européennes aussi bien. C’est pourquoi, juste comme on ne pourrait pas permettre à le nationalisme allemand d’ordonner l‘Europe, on ne peut pas également permettre à l’anti-nationalisme allemand d’ordonner l‘Europe. L’Allemagne ne doit pas ordonner, période.

montre que sa haine d’un pays particulier est plus forte que ses capacités analytiques.

Pourquoi la principale puissance dans la guerre contre le terrorisme de „« en même temps invitant la France à s’ouvrir à l’infiltration islamique et stimulant secrètement cet infiltation, car nous est-elle pour savoir par Wikileaks (et n’y a-t-il aucune raison de supposer que la même stratégie n’est pas appliquée à d’autres pays européens) ? Pourquoi la puissance européenne se joint-elle le plus passionément cette guerre – Grande-Bretagne – en même temps et à la même passion s’engageant dans son auto-Islamisation ? Pourquoi sont-elles les puissances anglo-saxonnes, alors qu’à la guerre avec plus d’un pays islamique, invitant l‘Europe pour agrandir l’Union européenne de plus en plus, prévisible avec le résultat que la Turquie et l’Afrique du Nord adhéreront au club, ouvrant de ce fait l‘Europe à une pléthore d’immigrés musulmans ?

La réponse évidente est que l’occidentalisation du monde islamique et l’islamisation du monde occidental sont deux côtés de la même pièce de monnaie.

L’établissement d’une civilisation uniforme globale exige la destruction des modèles traditionnels des valeurs et des fidélités. Les nations, religions, traditions permettent à des personnes d’exprimer la solidarité les uns avec les autres ; elles sont les ennemis naturels de n’importe quelle tyrannie. Moyens de mondialisme de dissoudre ces liens qui tiennent la société ensemble, faisant à hommes de simples consommateurs et membres parfaits de la main-d’oeuvre, à condition d’un système global des établissements supranationaux responsables à personne. Un tel système de mobilité globale de capital et de travail, c.-à-d. une économie de marché globale, tend à l’anarchie au niveau micro, exigeant de ce fait davantage de d’habilitation du niveau supranational d’imposer une paix que les différents états ne peuvent plus préserver.

Est ce pour ce que les classes politiques de tous les pays occidentaux, y compris les Etats-Unis, fonctionnent. Les musulmans avec leur ambition de Jihad, et la gauche avec son utopie multiculturelle puérile sont juste vus en tant que forces auxiliaires utiles, qui est la raison pour laquelle elles sont données leur tête.

C’est derrière les slogans de la démocratie de propagation de „« , et liberté de „« , et gouvernement de „bon « et ainsi de suite ; et c’est derrière les expressions de l’enrichissement culturel en „« , tolérance de „« , la culture bienvenue de „« et ainsi de suite. Il est probable que les responsables croient au ce qu’elles indiquent. Ils croient probablement vraiment qu’ils travaillent pour un système de paix et de liberté. Malheureusement, ceci exige que les adversaires sont non seulement des ennemis, mais des diables, apparemment travaillant pour la guerre et la tyrannie. Le concept utopique du monde du „un « implique une hyper-moralité et nécessite la déshumanisation de l’ennemi.

Moyens de pays d’États voyou de opposition de étiquetage de „« : pour ne pas demeurer avec des normes juridiques établies en ce qui concerne ces pays. Car mon propre pays a été deux fois déclaré une État voyou au siècle dernier, je sais de ce que je parle, et voyant comment facilement même un simple sondage d’opinion provoque la haine ethnique anti-Allemande pure parmi des Américains (je pense qu’attitude du ` s d’Auster est représentatif), il le ` t d’isn dur pour imaginer ce que la réaction serait si l’Allemagne combattait sérieusement l’islamisation. Même les conservateurs aiment Auster, je supposent, le ` t de wouldn se tiennent prêt notre côté.

La torture soi-disant des terroristes à Guantanamo et n’est pas ailleurs une exception à la règle due aux conditions irréfutables de la sécurité nationale (par la manière : s’il était nécessaire d’examiner le conducteur du ` s de Ben Laden, pourquoi était elle non nécessaire pour examiner Ben Laden lui-même ?), et le cadavre de lancement du ` s de Ben Laden dans la mer est la conséquence de cette De-humanisation. En même temps, c’est un avertissement à n’importe quel adversaire du nouvel ordre mondial, Fe pour des counterjihadists, qu’ils n’ont aucune possibilité de l’traitement selon des normes démocratiques civilisées si leur opposition devient trop forte.

Ce qu’elles font aujourd’hui avec Ben Laden est ce qu’elles ont fait hier avec les généraux allemands, et ce qu’elles feront demain avec n’importe qui combattant leur utopie. Ce ` s pourquoi je mets le ` t célèbrent la mort du ` s de Ben Laden.

Diesen Beitrag weiterlesen »

Hostility Towards Germans Part I: The Anti-German Narrative in the West

Written by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage

 

Translated by J M Damon

 

Following is a translation of a blog posted at http://korrektheiten.com/2011/08/02/deutschenfeindlichkeit-das-westliche-antideutsche-narrativ/

The blog begins:

[On 16 July 2011 the author gave a lecture before the Berlin Institute for State Policy on the subject of “Hostility Towards Germans – An Appraisal” in conjunction with the Institute’s 18th Course of Lectures. Unfortunately there are no recordings of this highly interesting event.  In response to requests, I have reconstituted my speech from notes. Since the lecture is too long for a single blog article I am posting it as a series, beginning with “The Anti-German Narrative in the West.]

 

 

DEUTSCHENFEINDLICHKEIT (Hostility Toward the German People) Is a Complex Phenomenon.

 

Many peoples, such as Poles, French, British and Jews, harbor a traditional resentment against the German peoplethat dates from the Second World War and preceding wars.

In addition, there is a kind of intellectual hostility toward all things German that has less to do with dislike of Germans as people than dislike and fear of the German state, which, it is feared, will become too powerful.

There is distrust of the German national character.

There is hostility toward all things German, especially on the part of the migrants who live here.

There is even a certain ant German hostility among the Germans themselves.

There is in fact an entire ideology that includes as one of its central elements DEUTSCHFEINDLICHKEIT (hostility towards all things German.)

[The subject of my lecture was DEUTSCHENFEINDLICHKEIT , or hostility toward the German people.

When in the following I use primarily the word DEUTSCHFEINDLICHKEIT (hostility toward things German) as opposed toDEUTSCHENFEINDLICHKEIT (hostility toward the German people), I am trying to make clear that I am referring not simply to hostility toward Germans, but rather, in a broad and inclusive sense, to various hostilities against German things and attributes in general, such as the cultural VOLK, the state, the general German population, etc.]

 

The various facets and levels of this complex of hostilities are not isolated or disconnected; they penetrate and reinforce each other and merge to form a real danger for the German VOLK.

The hostility toward things German that Goetz Kubitschek and Michael Paulwitz discuss in their book “DEUTSCHE OPFER – FREMDE TÄTER” (German Victims, Foreign Perpetrators: <http://www.deutscheopfer.de/>) is only one side of the coin, as I will discuss later on.

The other side of the coin is the hostility that is found in our own camp, which combined with mass migration is creating the real danger of our becoming a minority in own own country.

Obviously this would pose a threat to our domestic security.

“Our own camp” includes especially our power elite, whose anti German hostility poses a strategic problem.

The Western culture that includes Germany forms a broader context.  Its elite evinces anti German hostility that has less to do with actual resentment than with ideology.

 

The Western anti German Narrative

 

The most common and widespread basis for hostility toward things German is what I call the Western anti German narrative.

“Narrative” is a new expression in German — we could also speak of an ideology of history.

In this ideology, which is spread by films, literature, and popular depictions of history, Germany has represented a danger for its neighbors in the past and still represents a potential danger.

For this reason Germany must be fettered, disempowered and diluted because the German national character is anti democratic, excessively obedient to established authority, collectivistic, violence prone, warlike, genocidal, etc., etc.

Present day historians are generally too sophisticated to draw a clear and direct line between Luther, Frederick, Bismarck and Hitler, but the lingering effects of such propagandistic historiography are still quite noticeable today, expressed in thetendency to treat all German history as the prehistory of the Third Reich.

 

One cannot understand this concept of history unless one understands the historical context of the European civil war that has been raging since 1789.

[Hanno Kesting’s work GESCHICHTSPHILOSOPHIE UND WELTBÜRGERKRIEG. DEUTUNGEN DER GESCHICHTE VON DER FRANZÖSISCHEN REVOLUTION BIS ZUM OST-WEST-KONFLIKT (Philosophy of History and Global Civil War: The Significance of the History of the French Revolution to the East-West Conflict), published in 1959, is well worth reading in this regard.

Today it is unavailable even at antiquarian bookstores, but good libraries still have it – at any rate, the BERLINER STAATSBIBLIOTHEK (Berlin State Library) has it.]

 

This civil war is being fought by the adherents of three ideologies who constantly change their names, slogans and programs but still retain a recognizable identity and continuity.

We are dealing with two utopian and one non-utopian worldviews, Liberalism and Socialism on one hand and what is variously called Conservatism, Reaction or simply the Political Right on the other hand.

Regardless of their differences, both of the utopian-revolutionary ideologies have identifiable similarities that make them so fundamentally distinguishable from the Right that they can be traced back to a common “Meta-ideology.”

The utopian approach assumes that the possibility of peaceful and civilized coexistence among mankind.

This would not have to be a miracle, but is rather something that can come about as a matter of course.

For this reason one does not have to examine and analyze the fundamentals of society itself; one can directly and immediately pursue the realization of paradise on earth, either through gradual reform or revolutionary violence.

 

The Utopian Ideologies Imply a Number of Assumptions

 

Firstly, utopian societies hold that man is by nature good.

Social conditions such as inequality and lack of freedom are responsible for the existence of evil and must therefore be banished.

The approach of the political Right is that man is inadequate and weak and mired in original sin and must therefore rely on a social order for support.

Therefore a certain measure of inequality and bondage must be accepted as necessary.

The alternatives are not “Liberty, Equality,Fraternity” but rather chaos, violence and barbarism.

 

Secondly, Utopian ideologies hold that society can be rationally planned; its design is a matter of reason and enlightenment.

The Right, by contrast, believes that what is traditional and established can be destroyed by criticism, but cannot be replaced by anything better through rational processes.

Examples of what cannot be replaced by rationalism are the concepts of family, faith, tradition and Fatherland.

 

Thirdly, Utopian societies hold that what is “Good” (such as Freedom and Equality) can be rationally inferred, thus theGood is culturally independent and universally valid.

They believe that mankind can be redeemed if the Utopia derived from Enlightenment principles can be globally introduced.

For Conservatives, on the other hand, each culture is a unique, unplanned and irreproducible response to the elementary question of whether an orderly society is possible.

The Right emphasizes the legitimacy of the particular as opposed to the validity of universal ideology.

 

Fourthly, Utopian societies harbor the belief that society has to be defined and analyzed according to their standards.

These standards comprise a standpoint of norms rather than facts – thus “What Should Be” trumps “What Is.”

They are derived from rights rather than duties.

The Utopian concept of society confuses itself with “Reason and Enlightenment” because it is built on unreal notions instead of imperfect reality, and thus mistakes itself for “The Good.”

The reason Utopia mistakes itself for “The Good” is because it proceeds from the assumption that Man himself is good, and this implies that “The Bad” resides in social structures and concepts including tradition, articles of faith, duty, etc.

In their way of thinking, if the structures are bad the defenders of these structures must likewise be bad.

Obviously, tolerance cannot be based on such a concept of society; the less it is practiced, the less its adherents feel the need for it.

 

The Utopian concept of society produces an apocalyptic concept of politics, according to which politics is a struggle between the powers of light and of darkness.

Consequently, war is not perceived as tragic and inescapable.

It is perceived as justified when it is conducted for revolutionary aims and purposes.

In that case, every atrocity is acceptable.

The Utopian concept perceives war as criminal when it is conducted for counterrevolutionary aims and purposes, and then the means by which it is conducted are not taken into consideration.

 

And what does all this have to do with hostility against all things German?

 

If we conceive of 20th Century wars as parts of a global ideological civil war, Germany obviously represents the Right.

Germany could never accept the idea that wars are conducted in order to bring about “The Good Order” such as “War to End All War.”

This Utopian idea results in an apocalyptic concept of politics.

The idea of “Good War” is part of the Utopian concept of the liberalist world order as pursued by the Western “democracies” as well as the variant of Communism pursued by the Soviet Union.

The accusation that Germany was striving for world domination, which was put forward at the beginning of the 20th Century, would have been absurd even if not raised by the Anglo Saxon powers!

At every moment of the 19th and 20th centuries, those countries were infinitely closer to world domination than Germany ever was, and they continue to be so in the 21st Century.

 

Nations that were protected by insular geography have historically indulged in bold thinking and thanks to this geography, have been able to pursue global expansionist policies.

The liberal New World Order that appeared on the world stage before the First World War was also a fitting ideology for global Utopian thinking, since imperialistic power politics functioned as the armed branch of Utopia.

It is not true that one was merely a function of the other.

Both aspects of Anglo Saxon (and particularly American) policy) were aspects of one and the same understanding of politics.

 

By contrast, Germany traditionally represented institutionalized counter-revolution.

Globalist Utopian thinking was alien to the German power elite, since they faced the reality of governing a state that was constantly threatened from the inside as well as the outside.

Their political horizon was continental as opposed to insular, and so they were concerned with the consolidation of what actually existed.

The Reich did indeed adopt liberal, democratic and even socialistic ideas – consider the Bismarckian social legislation.

However, it did so only on condition that these ideas would consolidate the existing order.

The door was open for socialistic ideas to develop, but they would never be allowed to destroy the existing order.

 

This political concept (renunciation of revolutionary or utopian policies) determined the policies not only of conservatives, but of the Liberals as well, and ultimately even the policies of the Social Democrats.

The tendency to think in revolutionary and utopian terms was simply alien to Germany — it was too weak and exposed to attempt changing the world order or to entertain ideas of world conquest.

However, Germany was at least potentially strong enough to bring Europe into its sphere of influence and thus block establishment of a new world order; and if Europe were going to be true to its name, it would have to do likewise.

 

The war against Germany, which, as Winston Churchill observed, was in fact a Thirty Years War lasting from 1914 – 1945, was obviously not fought in response to any “crimes” committed by the National Socialists.

Instead, the Thirty Year War War Against Germany was fought to force Europe into the liberalist-utopian world order and the Anglo Saxon sphere of control.

Germany did not subscribe to any grandiose principle that it wanted to make real.

It was a nation rooted in concrete reality whose order and goals was derived not from utopian designs but practical necessity.

The Germans had no abstract loyalty toward liberal or “democratic” ideals, and this is what brought on the propagandistic accusation of being excessively obedient.

 

Germany did not pretend to be fighting for universal bliss, therefore it had to defend interests that were defined not ideologically but rather ethnically.

Germany’s enemies construed this as “nationalism.”

In fact, Germany championed communal values instead of individual entitlements.

It was not co-incidence that a current theme in German sociology was Ferdinand Tönnies’ opposition ofGEMEINSCHAFT (Community) to GESELLSCHAFT (Society.)

This is what constituted the “Collectivism” of which the Germans were accused.

Communal ideals are operative only when they are anchored in genuine emotions, the source of the cliche of German “romanticism” and “irrationality.”

 

In short, the facts that the Germans were different and thought differently from the Anglo Saxons and that they had no sense of Utopia, but rather represented a danger for its global realization, made them the principal enemy figure for Western Utopian thinking.

The cliches about the German national character represent the distorted and demagogically biased description of tendencies and dispositions that actually were (and still are) present.

These cliches were indispensible because a country like Germany could not afford globalistic Utopianism.

As we see today, Germany still cannot afford it.

Whether the Anglo Saxon peoples themselves can continue to afford it remains to be seen…

 

[Part II of DEUTSCHENFEINDLICHKEIT will deal with the adoption of the Western anti-German narrative by the Germans themselves and the consequences that have arisen from this.

 

****************

 

The translator is a “Germanophilic Germanist” who attempts to make noteworthy German articles accessible to Germanophiles who do not read German.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.
http://fakten-fiktionen.de/2011/07/24/politisch-inkorrekte-gedanken-zum-norwegen-massaker/
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!

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.

Review – Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof: „1939 – The War with Many Fathers“

Schultze-Rhonhof: 1939 - Der Krieg, der viele Väter hatteby Manfred Kleine-Hartlage, first issued october 24, 2009: Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof: 1939 – Der Krieg, der viele Väter hatte.

Translation by War Blogger, revised

[Update september 28, 2011: War Blogger has produced a video with the following text. So if you prefer videos, click here!]

One does not wrong the retired Bundeswehr Major-General Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof, who examines the leadup to the Second World War if one labels him a revisionist. Those, however, who use the label as an accusation should be aware of the ideologic tradition they join in doing so: „Revisionists“, these were the people within the SPD (at that time: Socialist Party of Germany) of August Bebel and later in all other Marxist organizations who sought to revise (from Latin re-videre: look anew) and correct the teachings of Marx and Engels. In countries where communists came to power the stigma of „revisionism“ was to be avoided like the plague if only because at certain times the mere accusation could cost the suspect his head.

Scientific progress, however, is dependent on constant revision, on new approaches and the questioning of familiar perspectives and established paradigms. The word „revisionist“, if used as a reproach, disqualifies only those who use it, not the ones it is meant to label. For those, it may well be an honorary title.

Of course, not every revision, regardless of the scientific discipline, is useful just because it is one such. It must be compatible with the existing data or source material and its explantory power should  at least equal the established theoretical paradigm. By advocating the idea that the Second World War had „many fathers“ Schultze-Rhonhof argues against a view of history (one that professional historians within their trade depict in a lot more differentiated way than it is presented in, for example, school books or news magazines) which can be summarized as follows:

Already the German Empire (before 1914) strived for German domination of at least Europe and, if possible, the whole world. After the defeat in the Great War, this desire, supported by a Social Darwinist ideology, was the program – in moderate and radical variants – of the German Right, most radically embodied in Hitler and his Nazi party. Hitler from the beginning sought to extend Germany’s power base through the successive elimination of neighboring states to gain the strength to fight against Great Powers, to disable France and Great Britain, to destroy the Soviet Union, thereby gaining „Lebensraum“ for Germans and perhaps to create the basis for a war against America and thus finally push forward to world domination.

The fascinating element of this view of history is – even before it comes to sources and facts – its narrative structure: there is a clear division between good and evil, and there is a suspense curve: Evil is built up until it becomes almost, but only almost, overpowering, is then put in its place by  a small Gallic village – the United Kingdom – and finally destroyed by an intrepid white knight, America. And there is a moral of the story.

This structure is doubly familiar: on the one hand, it corresponds to that of a fairy tale, on the other – with the motive of the final battle between good and evil – to that of the Apocalypse. Of course, that does not mean that it cannot be true. You just have to be aware to what extent this established view of history meets the expectations of quality literature, and to what extent it serves quasi-religious needs.

Many years ago pedestrians were lured into a trap by [the German version of] „Hidden Camera“ by a passer-by, apparently with a map in hand who asked for directions to the railway station and had the unknowing test subjects explain the way on his „map“, which in fact was a professional cutting pattern for clothing from a German DIY magazine. The dialogues resulting were something like this:

„So, you must now go straight along here…“
„At ‚yarn’?“
„Yeah, and then right here…“
‚Towards ‚pocket ‚?“
„Yes, yes. And turn left.“
„‚Passing ‚Button hole’?“
„Exactly…“

The willingness to accept the offered definition of a situation (in this case the pattern as a „map“) as „true“ can be so strong that apparent inconsistencies with this definition simply are not perceived. And do not believe that this willingness is limited to the surprised subjects of „Hidden Camera“.

For example, for years I had been convinced that the the so-called Hossbach-Protocol of 5 November 1937 contained Hitler’s declaration of his intention to launch a global war, and as such proved of the correctness of the above-cited view of history. And I had read the protocol several times: it contained Hitler’s announcement to attack Czechoslovakia and Austria, considerations under which circumstances such an attack could be performed and estimates of how the other powers would behave. It was a serious enough document for the prosecution at the Nuremberg trials, which indeed were about the charge of planning an „aggressive war“. It certainly was an important piece of evidence, but not a proof of a master plan for world domination. Although I should have known better, it was only Schultze-Rhonhof’s analysis that spurred me to read it more carefully. This is just an example of how strong the influence of an apparently obvious interpretation can be, and how helpful it is sometimes „to consider matters anew „.

Schultze-Rhonhof apparently starts from the assumption that there was no master plan, and that Hitler’s foreign policy was based, above all, on the particular tactical considerations of the moment, and he characterizes the stages of that foreign policy. No doubt this assumption is supported by Hitler’s and his policies‘ erratic character, by the often extreme fluctuations and reversals, by his penchant for improvisation and the generally chaotic nature of the decision-making in the Nazi state.

The opposite point of view of the predominant interpretation of history, that of Hitler having joined strict dogmatism of theory, strategy and planning with maximal opportunism practice, tactics and conduct contains latent contraditions; the two parts of this view do not seamlessly fit together. It needn’t be wrong, but I can not see what speaks against considering the alternative that Hitler might have acted primarily on the basis of tactical considerations. Perhaps to him, it was more about his own place in history than about the realization of the ideas he had laid down in „Mein Kampf“ in 1924, and maybe the thoughts written down therein have more the character of a reservoir of ideas into which he could dip when the need arose, but which he could also ignore as he pleased.

Remarkably, in an adjacent area of research, namely Holocaust Research, fierce opposition exists against the „intentionalist“ theory internalized by wide swaths of the public, and it does so in the center of the field, not on the periphery. Especially prominent is Hans Mommsen’s interpretation of the decision process that eventually resulted in the Holocaust, as a process called „cumulative radicalization“. The Nazi regime – this is the thesis in brief – had entangled itself into constraints that by themselves demanded more and more radical approaches as time progressed, finally ending with the „Final Solution“. I believe it is appropriate to adopt the idea of a similar gradual radicalization for the foreign policy of the regime, at least as a hypothesis. In this context, Hitler’s Social Darwinism takes the same role as anti-Semitism does in the structuralist interpretations of the Holocaust: that is the role of a general ideological framework without which the later developments would indeed be unthinkable, but  which is in itself is not an adequate explanans.

Of course, Schultze-Rhonhof makes those assumptions more implicitly rather than explicitly. He does not have the ambition to create an equally comprehensive counter-proposal to oppose the established historical narrative; theoretical considerations in general are less his business. He tries to describe the situation from the perspective of each actor (Hitler, the European powers, the German generals, the German people), and to understand their actions in order to arrive at an overall picture. This is the strength and the weakness of his approach.

The weakness is evident in that a situational analysis in any case does not reach the consistency of the established view of history. Basically, the author leaves it to his reader to decide in which theoretical framework he would place what he has learned.

What the author achieves, however, is to present the extent of the knowledge, experiences and expectations of the historical actors to the reader: Those who grew up in the post-war era can hardly imagine the existential importance which the question of national minorites had. In the time after the Great War one could lose one’s job, be expelled, disowned or killed simply for being the member of a national minority; and since the right to self-determination of Germans was held in especially low regard by the Allies, and large parts of territories with predominantly German populations were handed over to foreign nations, it was Germans who very often were the victims of such practices. Also, few people will know that the idea of „Lebensraum“ at that time was neither a specifically Nazi nor German concept. As a matter of fact, such ideas were the foundations of many colonial policies. The large colonial powers, of course did not bemoan the lack of „Living space“, for they had solved the problem for themselves. That in nations like Germany, but also Poland (!) the view was wide-spread that an urgent problem needed to be solved was the result of this predominant streak of thought in Europe.

Of course, concepts of „Lebensraum“ met fertile grounds in Germany where the British hunger blockade even after the Armistice of 1918 had resulted in the death of up to a million civilians and thus gave credibility to the thesis of „a people without (enough) space“ (especially industrial ressources and agricultural space) which otherwise would have never reached such popularity. This also is a point Schultze-Rhonhof’s book tries to remind the reader of. His depiction of the Allies at Versailles and the injustices committed thereafter does not have the function of serving as a cheap set-off, but serves to illustrate the background against which policies were considered and undertaken back then to those born of later generations.

The author’s love of detail leads to many a insights which give food for thought. For example, many who deal with matters related to WW2 know the sentence attributed to Hitler in which he states:

„My only fear is that some swine submits a proposal for mediation at the last moment!“ [“Ich habe nur Angst, dass mir im letzten Moment irgendein Schweinehund einen Vermittlungsvorschlag vorlegt.“]

The statement is from Hitler’s speech in front of the German High Command on 22 August 1939, and in its poignancy it is tailor-made to be popularized and completes the picture of a dictator who constantly pressed for war.
It had always surprised me that Hitler should have used such a vulgar language in front of the arch-conservative High Command without causing consternation, and I had written it of as a byproduct of the detrimental influence of the Nazi-Regime leading to a decline even of the manners of the highest Prussian officers. Schultze-Rhonhof however makes a plausible case for the theory that not only was this sentence never uttered as such (not even in the spirit of the statement), but that the version of the protocol of the speech in question is a forgery which was leaked to the prosecution at the Nuremberg Trials to make the German generals collectively responsible for the outbreak of the war.

With regard to the reception of the book the ferocity is amazing with which the core thesis – that the Second World War had „many fathers“ – is challenged: less so by the craft of historians who, as expected, ignored the work of an outsider (Schultze-Rhonhof is not a historian), but specifically by reviewers of the FAZ and the „Welt“ newspapers which use the opportunity once again to give food to the suspicion that they serve the media system in the same manner as the CDU/CSU serve the political system: as mere surrogates for conservatism. Interestingly, the question whether what the author states is the truth is of no importance to the two reviews. A higher priority seems to be placed on maintaining a certain kind of official historical narrative for reasons of national education [Volkspädagogik], and be it by defaming the author as a person and pushing him – what else? – into the right corner [in German, the right corner metaphor means you are labelled a Neonazi].

Ironically, the argument that the Second World War had many fathers is far from being a „legend“, as the FAZ reviewer claims:

There is no serious dispute among historians that the Versailles Treaty was a bad design which made German revenge efforts more likely; that Poland was an aggressive power that handled its many ethnic minorities incredibly brutal; that Czechoslovakia protratced her minority issues to the 1930s and made itself become a first class trouble spot; that Poland would rather risk a war with Germany than make any concessions in the Danzig and Corridor questions, and this despite the fact that the quite moderate German demands of late 1938 and early 1939 contained no territorial claims against Poland and were brought forward not with ultimate threats but after years of German-Polish cooperation in a style as it is customary between friendly countries.
And the thesis that Great Britain and its guarantee to Poland and France with its empty promises of military support reinforced Poland’s stubbornness, and perhaps intentionally so, is at least worthy of discussion. Many fathers, indeed.

„But, wait a minute,“ goes the typical objection, „aren’t the actions of the other European powers after Hitler’s rise to power ojectively meaningless since Germany was going to start a war for „Lebensraum“ in any case, as written in „Mein Kampf“?

No, not as far as Poland is concerned. Poland could have made arrangements with Germany even without joining the Anti-Comintern Pact; Schultze-Rhonhof goes to some length to clarify this point, and I know of no historians who have objected to such a view. The question of whether the consequence of such an understanding would have been a great war (against France, Russia or whoever), can in all honesty not be answered. The ease, however, with which it is affirmed by the established historic narrative may however be less the result of irrefutable source evidence but rather be based on the interpretation offered by the grand narrative of rise and fall of the clever devil Hitler, who already knew in 1923 what he would do in 1943. The mere existence of such a „complete“ story seems like a ready-made bed into which one simply has to jump to rest with sweet dreams.

Whether this narrative constitutes a good map or is just equal to another fake pattern of yarn, that is for everbody him- or herself to decide. Schultze-Rhonhof also does not answer that question in the end. He shakes the plausibility of the prevailing interpretation of history in some details by putting the situational and tactical factors in German foreign policy into the spotlight, but he offers no convincing interpretation of his own. The strength of the book of vividly leading the reader into the strange world of the interwar period is paid for by a certain short-sightedness of the book’s general interpretation. The author’s desire to correct a most likely too one-sided perspective of history in turn brings forth a view with blind spots of its own.

Nevertheless: The work offers a wealth of important details that are known to the experts but not to the general public, and which you will most likely not find elsewhere in such a density and clarity. Therefore, it is worth reading and provokes the readers‘ contemplation and further questions. No more, no less.

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!

Kairos-

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 — oumma.fr and saphirnews.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

The French should get a tutorial in agitprop.

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

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

Tactic 5: Propagate best practices

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

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

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

Many thin threads give thick gallow rope.

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doctor Schäuble’s governmental neuroses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s consider, moreover,

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

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

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

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.