Archive
Categories

Artikel-Schlagworte: „history“

독일과 서쪽에 4개의 논제

[Machine translation. No liability for translation errors. 기계 번역. 번역 오류에 대해 어떠한 책임도 없습니다.]
Comments in English, please. View original article

Schattenkoenig의

Carolyn Yeager와 가진 면접시험을 위해 준비하기 위하여는, 독일의 (와, 일반적으로 서쪽) 상황의 몇몇 결정적인 양상을 강조하는 뒤에 오는 생각이 영어로 Schattenkoenig에 의하여 운동했습니다.

i. Geopolitik의 독일 개념

기간은 중년부터 독일 생각을 지배했었던 전체론 전망의 전통에서 독일 (게르만 국가의 신성 로마 제국)가 그들의 자율성 및 민족성을 유지한 국가를 위한 주문 버팀대의 종류를 형성할 때, 독일 독일에 중심에 두곤 및 발견된 세계적인 정치적인 전략의 개략을 기술합니다. 새로운 나이에서는, 다른 사람들에게 존경을‘ 주는 유전 관점은 특성 설치되었습니다.

가장 중요하게 자연적으로 주어지는 무슨이의 과학 적이고 및 합리적으로 주어진 원근법에 있는 독어 Geopolitik의 뿌리박는 것은 저에게 보입니다. 그것은 사람들을 현실을 위해 부적당한 어떤 유토피아 관념론에 따라 사람들 형성 대신에 그들이이고 진짜로 무슨 그들의 현실적 잠재력이인 무슨 현재로 생각합니다. 1945에 있는 독일 상공에 승리 힘에는 유감스럽게도 이데올로기 개념을 따르고 그리고 사람들을 위한 조금 존경이‘ 자연적인 상태 있었습니다. 현실은 그들의 유토피아 전망이 실패하는 원인이 되는 경우에, 더 나쁘게 „변화에 사실을 밖으로 말하기 위하여 남겨진 자유 없이 새로운 전체주의와 지구 뼘으로 재는 소연방에서 – 모든 세계까지 – 그것을 일어나면 강제되면 „현실을 위해 끄.

Geopolitik는 겨냥하는 세계에 있는 힘이 있었다 는 사실을 충분히 인식해 그런 세계적인 전체주의와 인공적인 체계를 건립하. 독일 지식인은 모든 국가를 압도하고 세계 경제 시스템으로 혼합하기의 목표를 가진 협격전에 있는 더 나은 유례, 2개의 팔의 쌍방으로 완전히 서쪽 자유주의 자본주의 및 마르크시즘을에서 1개의 메달, 인식했었습니다. Geopolitik는 나중에 프랑스, 대브리튼과, 소연방에 의해 착수한 이 시도에 대하여 방어적인 이론이었습니다.

독일 지정학의 이상은 „유기 국가 „이고, 로 최선으로 그것의 주어진 잠재력을 깨달아 육체적으로, 도덕적으로 그리고 경제적으로 건강한 사람들을 정의했습니다. 국가 경제는 의존에서 외부적인 관심사에 보호될 것이었습니다, 그러므로 „경제 자립 정책을 위한 노력은 „채택되었습니다. 모두를 생성할 수 있는 그것 국가는 그들의 감시한 하숙인 안에 충돌의 경우에는 협박되거나 질식되게 거의 없습니다 필요로 하고 소모합니다.

이 개념은 제 1 차 세계 대전의 앞에 이미 강한 동기부여이고, 그것의 유전학에 의해 determinated 사람들 및 그것의 정치 결정 조차의 특성을 믿는 때 국가 사회주의자는 „인종 순수성의 개념을 „추가했습니다. 이것은 또한 치명적 오류로 예를들면 이끌어 냈습니다 그들이 영국을 프랑스와 러시아에 대하여 자연적인 맹방인 기대하는 때. 그들은 브리튼 (와 또한 미국 사람들 완전히, 경제적으로 그리고 정신적으로 지배 가능한 은밀한 힘에 의해) 완전하게 훼손되고기 파괴되었기 때문에 일 그 때 진짜로 무슨 일이 일어났느가가에서 더 수 없었습니다.

독일 사람들이 인구학 성장에서 당시에 아직도 인 때 개념은 개발되고, 독일에는 이미 높은 인구 밀도, „Lebensraum의 개념이 „주어진 중요성 있었습니다. 경제 자립 정책과 힘을 독자적으로 얻는 아무 기회도 없어 더 작은 국가에는 그것의 훌륭한 이웃사람에게 사라지고 무너지기 위한 것이었다는 것을 아이디어 조차 가장 이른 개념에서 상승하는 것을 보이고, Hitler와 국가 사회주의자에 의해서만 국가의 사회 진화론의 종류로 대중화되었습니다. 개념은 몰살 하고 또는 사람들 또다른 하나에 찬성하여 절멸 무관합니다, 그러나 국가가 벨기에를 좋아하는 이론이 있기 때문에, 룩셈부르크에는 또는 폴란드에는 대단히 오래 존재의 아무 원근법도 없었습니다, 그(것)들을 지도 떨어져 신중하게 닦고 독일 판도에 그들의 사람들을 정복하는 더 이상 큰 것에 보이지 않습니다.

Geopolitik에는 또한 자연 경계가 있고는 그리고 그러므로 외국 무전망침입에 몇 세기에 걸쳐 지배를 받 인 독일의 자연적인 상태 때문에 기존하는 국경을 위한 조금 존경이 없었습니다 (전쟁 예를들면 30 년‘). 관심사의 유일한 하숙인은 독일 사람들이 계속해서 확장한 경우에, 확장하는 것이 허용된 „Volksgrenze „, 이어, 군 방법에 또한 무너지.

II. 경제 과학의 독일과 서쪽 개념

Geopolitik로 유사한 방법에서는, 경제에 독일 전망은 통합과 전체론 이었습니다. 완전히 억제되지 않는 시장이 사람들의 자유 그리고 안전에 가혹한 위협을 야기하고 대량 기아와 몰살에서 끝날지도 조차 모르다, 항상 독일 하숙인 저쪽에 조차 일치, 이었었습니다. „에 의하여 억제되지 않는 경제에서는 국가는 „거기 시장의 언젠가 더 중대한 통제와 언젠가 더 중대한 이익에 선수 활동적인 조준이고, 더 이익은 선수 만들 수 있을 것입니다, 더 강대하고 것 및 보다 적게 꼼꼼할 것이 그는, 및 그가 사람들의 복지 그러나 유일하게 그의것을 아닙니다 이익 걱정한 대로, 결과 일 것입니다 일반 소비자가 지불할 수 없습니다 기본 필요의 것을 위한 가격을 가진 큰 전매권 될 것입니다.

프랑스와 같은 다른 유럽 국가에서 조차 독일 경제 과학자는, 이탈리아 또는 영국, 국가 번영의 목표를 도달하기 위하여, 거기 물 전기, 음식, 커뮤니케이션 및 수송과 같은 기본 필요의 것을 위한 국가 통제되는 경제이라고 설치되어야 했다 알고 있고.

당신이 경제 liberalists에 오늘 말하고 그리고 이 사실 이 떠오르는 경우에, 그들은 „마르크스주의자 „, „사회주의자 „또는 다른 거친 말이기 위하여 보통 생각의 그런 종류를 비난할 것입니다. 그들은 각 경제 운동의 총 자유, 사람들의 특히 그것 및 돈의 개념을 inhalated. 그것의 생각을 완전하게 개발할 수 있기 전에 반대를 침묵시키는 위하여 그들이 oder에서 이렇게 하는 동안, 진실에서 더 일 수 없었습니다. 실제로, 총 시장 자유의 개념은 그 자체로는 경제에 전통적인 대륙 접근 보다는 매우 마르크스주의자 입니다.

과학과 정치 토론을 오늘 지배하는 때, 자유주의는 국가 경제의 전통적인 이론에 있는 아무 뿌리도 없는 완전히 다른 사고 체계에서 옵니다. 사람들을 위한 작동하거나 편성 일 그리고 공급의 분야에서 아닙니다 자유 경제에 근본적인 일을 있던 그들의 개인적인 경험이 어느 정도 지역에 있는 공식화한 사람들 그러나 오히려 다루는 범지역 무역 또는 증권 거래소에서. 그러므로 그들의 자신의 경제 관심사가 그들의 이론적인 건물을 지배하기 위하여 오다 놀람이 아닙니다. 이 사람들은 중앙 경제 „법률로 입법에 만유인력 그러나 수요로 자연법이 없더라도, 무역을 위한 경계에 있는 그들의 관심사를 „만들었습니다.

오늘 이익 거대한 양을 얻기 위하여 실제로 세계적으로 무역 관심사를 운영하기를 위한 경이롭게 unproblematic 방법 인, 자유 시장의 „이론은 „매 국가에 „4 기본적인 교류 „를 강제하는 것을 대담하게 합니다 조차. 이 교류는: 돈 (Investitions와 밖으로 안으로 이익), 상품 (자연 자원은, 제품 안으로 어디에나 어디에나 밖으로 허용되어야 합니다), 정보 (생산 요인에 관하여) 및 노동 인구. 이들의 마지막 것은 지구의 맞은편에 노동자의 자유로운 교류가 전체 사람들 높은 쪽으로 뿌리박고기 착취의 정신이 없는 체계 및 이익의 극대화로 그(것)들을 강요할 것이기 때문에, 모두의 가장 위험합니다. 이 4개의 교류를 확보하기 위하여는, 미국 군사 전략은 다섯번째 교류를 설치하고 고려합니다: 실제로 방법 „미국 전략적인 서비스“의 그것: 교류의 실시를 저항하는 각 국가에 전쟁.

Marx가 „자본주의를 „강평하는 곳에, 항상 그가 기술하는 자본주의의 이 모양입니다. 이른 19. 세기의 관점에서 시장을 제한하고 알맞도록 하기의 실제적인 방법 허위가 있었더라도 국가 복지에 찬성하여 당당한 입법에 의하여 독일 의 이것 입니다. Marx‘ 주요 논쟁은: 경제에서는 그가 그것을 기술하기 때문에, 혁명은 필요성입니다. 그러나 Marx가 혁명을 필요성이라고 어쨌든 생각하기 때문에, 왜 되지 않은 것이 질량을 위해 진짜로 나쁜 첫째로 끄는. 항상 마지막 150 년간 이렇게 아주 좋은에 따라서 주어지는 그러므로 가장 악랄한 자본가, 국제적인 은행가 및 마르크스주의자. 마르크스주의자는, 실제로, 은행가‘ 그들의 더럽고 그러나 필요한 일하는 돌격대원입니다 조차.

규칙의 마르크스주의자 체계는 어느 쪽으로든, 또는 기 협박으로 마르크스주의자 혁명을 통해이라고 해도 오늘이기 때문에, 올 것입니다. 서쪽 자유주의 도 아니다 고아한 마르크시즘은 아니 그 협격전에서 유럽과 미국 사회를 지도하지 않을 것입니다. 전체론 경제의 자리잡히고는 그러나 길 잊혀진 대륙 이론의 어쩌면 고려사항은 탈출구를 제공할지도 모릅니다.

III. 전쟁 주의

중대한 단일 민족 국가의 설립 다음, 훌륭한 서 있는 육군은 올리고, 이 육군에 제공하기 위하여 인 무슨의를 위해 감을, 국가는 더 중대한 가늠자에 주의를 지휘해야 했습니다. 서방 선진국, 특히 브리튼은, 이 점을 아주 일찌기 가지고 있었습니다. 브리튼은, 아니오 1 위치에서, 가능하게 대륙에 일어나기 동시 사건을 무엇이든 두려워하기 때문에, 독일 독일을 encirculating에 있는 원동력이었습니다. 인간 관계에 독일에 대하여 전쟁을 전도적으로 준비하기 위하여는, „Tavistock 학회는 „설립되었습니다. 이제까지 그것이라고 전해 듣는? 그리고 그것은 100 년간 실존에, 지금 아직도 있습니다. 이 학회는 사람들로 독일을 악마로 만들기의 원인을 위한 중상, 악평 및 사기를 instrumentalized.

전시 채권을 얻는 것은 브리튼의 전쟁 측정, 그들의 주의 포스터에서 설치된 학회 융자를 위해 간단한 영국 시민에게 겨냥하는 전체적인 세계를 정복하고 브리튼을 예속시키는 독일의 아이디어 판매했습니다. 아기‘ 손 차단하고, 벨기에 수녀를 강간하고 WWI에서 조차 돼지 음식으로 떨어진 영국 군인을 – 가공해 독일 군인의 사기가 그들에 의하여 퍼졌습니다!

Edward이라고 Bernays 지명된 이 사람이 있습니다. 그는 미국 유태인, 지그문트 프로이트에게 조카이었습니다. 유태인 네트워크가 미국을 독일에 대하여 브리튼으로 협력하기 원하기 때문에, Bernays는 브리튼에 가고 미국 사람들에게 선전의 목표를 가진 Tavistock 학회에서 미국이 접경하지 않은 그것에 직접적인 위협을 결코 야기하지 않으며 독일에 대하여 전쟁을 믿을 때까지, 이었습니다 필요성 작동했습니다. 당신은 수 있어습니까 당신의 고국을, 자체적으로를 위한 가장 경미한 관심사 없이 외국 힘에 찬성하여 전쟁으로 얻기 보다는 반역의 더 중대한 행위를 생각할? 전쟁이 끝난 후에, Bernays는 광고 홍보 활동으로 알려진 공공 캠페인을 위한 몇몇을의 전도적인 기술 instrumentalized.

독일에는 이 불신에 대하여 놓는 것을 아무것도 없었습니다. 그것은 „미개했던 „인의 비난을 무효로 하기 위하여 빌드된 전쟁 배 무력 그리고 양을 위한 국가 교육, 비용, „“전쟁 찾거나 „“군국주의자에 관하여 사실 그리고 숫자를 선물하는 것을 시도했습니다. 불행히도, 이 화제에 관하여 진실은 수로서만 볼품있고, 수를 선물하는 주의 포스터는 사람들‘ 눈 붙잡고 전시 채권에서 돈 초래하게 아주 가정 이지 않습니다. 1917년 현재로서만, 독일인은 낱말 „Helft uns siegen를 가진 군인을 „보여주는 그들의 첫번째 그림 단지 주의 포스터를 만들었습니다 (저희를 승리 도우십시오). 그것은 10 시간을 이전 포스터의 결과 올렸습니다. 독일은 WWI를 militarically 잃기 전에 비극으로, 전쟁을 전도적으로 잃었습니다.

그리고 독일이 WWI에 있는 주의 재해에서 결과를 당긴 대로, WWII에서 반복하는 조차 이 비극. Goebbels 맹방‘ 전도적인 분지에 의하여 세계에 훨씬 악마 사기가 퍼지는 동안‘ 수치스러운 사기 말로 연속적으로 악마로 만들어진, 공중 계몽과 주의를 위한 내각 실제로 지금 막 인기를 얻기 쉬운 표제로 것을 끼워넣기의 방법을 찾아냈었습니다. 불행히도, 매우 보다 적게 다시 잃어 속이고 모든 죄악을 그 후에 각 싸우는 힘 비난된 힘은 투입했었습니다. 무슨 종류의 알고 맹방‘ 전쟁 주의가인 당신이 싶은 경우에 다만 Ilja Ehrenburg의 이름을 찾아보십시오.

IV. The situation in Germany today

Any German who still thinks the German education system will provide him with an adequate mindset is hopelessly enslaved by the Matrix. Germany today is not a free country, but the elites never stop praising their system as „the most democratic, the most free state ever in existence on German soil“. In fact, you are free to consume drugs, you are free to kill your children as long as they are yet unborn, you are free marching naked through the streets on one of those notorious CSDs – but you are NOT free to call this kind of „freedom“ decadent and menacing to our future. You are also not free to claim that the procreation of imported Islamic minorities will not only put these symptoms of decadence to an end but also will bury the small rest of our civil rights when they start struggling for the installation of Sharia Courts.

This struggle is IMO about to come, but I don’t consider it to be possibly successful. Islamists have been brought in in masses to destroy the traditional character of the country, to riot in the streets and to stoke fears among the populace, but the main purpose is to make the peoples more likely to accept a totalitarian control system, a Police state which is designed mainly by the EU. The Federal Republic is even eager to deconstruct its own statehood, its own possibility to handle the coming conflicts because the FRG-Pseudo-Elites are so eager for careers in Bruxelles and are, of course, highly confident in the European Utopia. What the average German says about this bureaucratic juggernaut doesn’t matter at all, as with modern media manipulation tools in „modern-day Democracy“, the „Souvereign“ (i.e. the average) can be forced into arbitrary states of mind.

In 2007, I took part in a demonstration in Bruxelles on September 11th in order to commemorate the victims of the New York atrocity. At that time I was still very much „critical to Islam“ and believed the lie set up by people like Ralph Giordano („Not migration is the problem, but Islam is“ – in fact it’s just the other way round). But nevertheless the event was forbidden by the Communist Bruxelles mayor (in Belgium, unlike in Germany, mayors even have the power to forbid demonstrations). Heavy armed police forces were out on the streets, with armored cars on every corner. I saw a man arrested for nothing but standing with a Crucifix and recitating verses from the Bible. I saw people getting handcuffed for flying national flags. Later I heard that there were even MdEPs (Members of European Parliament) and members of the national parliament of Belgium, of the group Vlaams Belang, heavily beaten up and taken into arrest. The Bruxelles mayor had deliberately ordered French-speaking police forces from the Walloonia to „pacify“ the situation, exploiting the inner-Belgian national conflict for his purposes. In Bruxelles, the Muslim part of the population was then already 57%, and the Communist Party led a coalition with several Islamic fractions in the town hall.

In 2008, there was a rally organized in Cologne called „Antiislamisierungskongreß“. A few hundred demonstrators were present, but the official city government organized a counter-demonstration which consisted of more than 20,000 leftists and „Gutmenschen“. The mayor of Cologne, whose son was even killed by a Turkish car driver in 2001, called the conservative demonstrators „braune Soße, die ins Klo gehört“ (brown sauce belonging into a toilet). The Police „failed“ in protecting the demonstrators, of which some were heavily beaten up. A river boat they had rented for the day was thrown at with stones so it almost sank. Finally the whole event had to be blown off. Leftist and militant „Antifa“ forces, indoctrinated school classes, Marxist priests with their also indoctrinated parishes join forces with the official administration – and in the future also with the police – against those who simply rally for Germany to keep its German character. This mess is called „Aufstand der Anständigen“ (Rise of the Righteous).
To provide oneself with a more adequate picture of his country’s very own history, one has to really be both courageous and creative. There is a newspaper which is in fact just a little bit more right-winged than the Allied-licensed press cartel (Junge Freiheit). It comes out weekly on Fridays. Sometimes when I wanted a copy, all the copies from my local kiosque were sold out by Friday 12:00 and no copies were left. This wasn’t because of a high demand for the paper but because the copies were not delivered to the kiosque – some leftist working for the delivery company had got behind what was in the package and simply annihilated it. In another press shop I asked for that newspaper and almost was kicked out by the shopkeeper, who then got a highly red head and almost wasn’t able to speak properly how much she despised of „people reading such papers“, and she „didn’t want to have to do with such papers“.

And the Junge Freiheit is long not capable of providing you the entire picture. Articles on general history dealing with the national socialist epoque are quite sparse. I most profited from reading the „Deutsche Geschichte“, a revisionist magazine which appears six times a year. The Editor reported of one case in which shopkeepers were threatened to get their shops burnt down by Leftists for just having the Deutsche Geschichte in its shop! The Editor also organizes meetings with Revisionist experts. Those meetings regularly have to be cancelled, as there are Leftists who „inform“ the hotel owners on what kind of historical views their guests have, and then the hotel clerks refuse to grant access for the referents.

This is also the way Leftists deal with unwelcome political forces such as „Die Freiheit“ (which internally is, in fact, more liberal than the CDU) or „Pro Deutschland“. These groups are simply unable to find a location to conduct their party meetings at because the location owners always get „informed“ and then act as expected. Nobody can publicly allow himself to be courageous, as reputation can – and will – be immediately destroyed. Would you want to resist a force which is willing to rip you off everything you own and even threatens to harm your home and family?

The head of the right-wing NPD, Udo Voigt, also once got kicked out of a hotel where he was spending his vacation. The hotel owner’s „explanation“ was that the other hotel guests’ right for an undisturbed stay at the hotel would outweigh the right of Mr. Voigt to stay in the hotel. Furthermore, as a private businessman he was able to decide who he wanted to have business with and with whom not. Mr. Voigt went to a court, which ruled that the hotel owner was right in doing so.
Such was the state of the German Nation in the past decade, and the actual decade is far from doing any better.

Diesen Beitrag weiterlesen »

Vier Theses op Duitsland en het Westen

[Machine translation. No liability for translation errors. Machine vertaling. Geen enkele aansprakelijkheid voor vertaalfouten.]
Comments in English, please. View original article

door Schattenkoenig

Die voor een gesprek met Carolyn Yeager, Schattenkoenig voorbereidingen treffen in het Engels de volgende gedachten wordt uitgewerkt om sommige essentiële aspecten de situatie van van Duitsland (en, in het algemeen, het Westen) te benadrukken.

I. Het Duitse concept Geopolitik

De termijn beschrijft een overzicht van globale politieke die strategieën op het Duitse die Duitse Rijk worden gericht en in de traditie van holistic meningen worden opgericht die het Duitse denken sinds de Middeleeuwen hadden overheerst, toen het Duitse Rijk (Heilig Roman Imperium van Germaanse Natie) een soort het opdracht geven van tot steun voor naties had gevormd die hun autonomie en nationaal karakter handhaafden. In de nieuwe leeftijd, werd een genetischer gezichtspunt gevestigd, gevend eerbied aan verschillende volkeren‘ karakters.

Het belangrijkst schijnt aan me het wortel schieten van Duitse Geopolitik in een wetenschappelijk en rationeel bereikt perspectief van wat natuurlijk wordt gegeven. Het denkt aan volkeren vanaf wat zijn zij werkelijk en wat hun realistisch potentieel is, in plaats van het vormen van volkeren volgens één of andere utopian ideologie die voor werkelijkheid ontoereikend is. De bevoegdheden zegevierend over Duitsland in 1945 volgden jammer genoeg ideologische concepten en hadden weinig eerbied voor volkeren‘ natuurlijke voorwaarden. Als de werkelijkheid hun utopian meningen om veroorzaakt te ontbreken, slechter maken zij het voor werkelijkheid blijken die aan verandering „„zal worden gedwongen – tot al wereld in nieuwe totalitair en bol-overspant Sovjetunie zonder vrijheid verlaten om uit de feiten te spreken zal ontwaken.

Geopolitik was zich volledig bewust van het feit dat er bevoegdheden in de wereld strevend naar het oprichten van zulk een globale totalitaire en kunstmatige systeem waren. De Duitse intellectuelen hadden volledig Westelijk Liberaal Kapitalisme en Marxisme als twee kanten van één medaille of, in een betere analogie gezien, twee wapens in een schaarbeweging met het doel om alle naties te overweldigen en hen te mengen in een wereld economisch systeem. Geopolitik was een verdedigingstheorie tegen deze die pogingen door Frankrijk, Groot-Brittannië en, recenter, door de Sovjetunie worden ondernomen.

Ideal van Duits Geo – de politiek was „de organische natie „, als fysisch, moreel en economisch gezonde mensen definieerde die optimaal zijn bepaald potentieel ontsluiten. De nationale economie moest van afhankelijkheid aan uitgaande belangen worden beschermd, daarom streef want de autarkie „„werd goedgekeurd. Een natie die alles kan produceren het vereist en binnen hun bewaakte pensionairs verbruikt zal minder waarschijnlijk om in het geval van conflict worden gechanteerd of worden verstikt.

Dit concept was reeds een sterke motivatie vóór Wereldoorlog I, en de Nazien voegden het concept rassenzuiverheid „toe „aangezien zij het karakter van mensen geloofden en zelfs zijn politieke besluiten die door zijn genetica worden bepaald. Dit leidde ook tot fatale fouten, b.v. aangezien zij Engeland verwachtten dat is een natuurlijke bondgenoot tegen Frankrijk en Rusland. Zij konden niet verder geweest zijn van wat toen werkelijk gebeurde, aangezien Groot-Brittannië (en ook de V.S.) volledig werden ondermijnd en door een heimelijke macht geschikt voor overheersen mensen totaal, economisch en geestelijk werden ontwricht.

Aangezien de Duitse mensen nog in de demografische groei in de tijd waren werd het concept ontwikkeld, en Duitsland had reeds een hoge bevolkingsdichtheid, het concept „bereikt belang „Lebensraum. Zelfs schijnt het idee dat een kleinere natie die geen kans had om autarkie te bereiken en de sterkte op hun aan zijn grotere buur moest verdwijnen en uiting geven om van de vroegste concepten toegenomen te zijn, en slechts door Hitler en de Nazien als een soort sociale darwinism van naties gepopulariseerd. Het concept heeft te doen niets met volkerenmoorden of uitroeiende volkeren ten gunste van een andere één, maar als daar was een theorie waarin de landen zoals België, Luxemburg of Polen geen perspectief van zeer langer het bestaan hadden, schijnt het niet meer een groot ding om hen doelbewust af te vegen van de kaart en hun volkeren te onderwerpen aan Duitse heerschappij.

Geopolitik had ook weinig eerbied voor bestaande grenzen wegens de natuurlijke voorwaarde van geen natuurlijke grenzen hebben en daarom Duitsland die onderworpen aan buitenlands binnendringen eeuwenlang zijn geweest (b.v. de Dertig Jaar‘ van de Oorlog). De enige pensionair van belang was „Volksgrenze „, die om zich werd toegestaan uit te breiden, ook uiting gevend aan militaire middelen, als de Duitse mensen zich voortdurend uitbreidden.

II. Duits en Westelijk concept economische wetenschap

Op een gelijkaardige manier als Geopolitik, was de Duitse mening over economie geïntegreerd en holistic. Het was altijd een consensus, zelfs voorbij de Duitse pensionair geweest, dat de totaal ongecontroleerde markten vormen een strenge bedreiging voor vrijheid en veiligheid van volkeren en zelfs omhoog in massaverhongering en volkerenmoord zouden kunnen beëindigen. In een economie ongecontroleerd door middel van „de staat „er zou spelers het actieve streven aan steeds grotere controle van de markt en aan steeds grotere winsten, en de meer winst zijn een speler zou kunnen maken, machtiger en minder gewetensvol zou hij, en aangezien hij niet voor het zijn winst van de mensen welzijn maar alleen geeft, het resultaat zou zijn een groot monopolie met prijzen voor dingen van basisbehoefte worden de gemiddelde consument niet kan betalen.

De Duitse economische wetenschappers, en zelfs van andere Europese landen zoals Frankrijk, Italië of Engeland, waren zich ervan bewust dat om het doel van nationale welvaart te bereiken, daar een state-controlled economie voor dingen van basisbehoeften, zoals water, elektriciteit, voedsel, mededeling en vervoer moest worden gevestigd.

Als u aan economische liberalists vandaag spreekt en met dit feit op de proppen komt, zullen zij gewoonlijk dergelijke soorten gedachten om marxist „„, socialist „„of andere ruwe woorden aan de kaak stellen te zijn. Zij hebben inhalated het concept totale vrijheid van elk economisch verkeer, vooral dat van volkeren en geld. Terwijl zij dit in Oder aan stilteoppositie doen zelfs alvorens het zijn gedachten kan ontwikkelen volledig, konden zij niet van de waarheid verder zijn. In feite, is het concept totale marktvrijheid op zichzelf veel meer Marxist dan de traditionele continentale benadering van economie.

Het liberalisme, aangezien het wetenschappelijke en politieke debatten vandaag overheerst, komt uit een volledig verschillende school van gedachte die geen wortels in de traditionele theorie van nationale economie heeft. Zij die de essentiële werkzaamheden aangaande liberale economie formuleerden hadden hun persoonlijke ervaring niet op het gebied van het werken van of het organiseren van het werk en levering voor de mensen op een bepaald gebied maar behandelden eerder in transregional handel of in effectenbeurzen. Daarom is het geen verrassing dat hun eigen economische rente komt om de hun theoretische bouw te overheersen. Deze mensen maakten hun rente in geen grenzen voor handel in een centrale economische „-wet „, hoewel het geen natuurlijke wet als Wet van ernst maar vraag aan de wetgeving is.

Vandaag betreft de theorie „„van vrije markten, die in feite een wonderfully unproblematic manier voor globaal werkende handel is reusachtige hoeveelheden winst te bereiken, durft zelfs om „vier te dwingen fundamentele stromen „op elke enige natie. Deze stromen zijn: Geld (Investitions binnen en Winsten uit), Goederen (de Natuurlijke rijkdommen MOETEN uit overal worden toegestaan, Producten in overal), Informatie (betreffende productiefactoren) en Aantal arbeidskrachten. Het laatste ding hiervan is het gevaarlijkst van allen, aangezien een vrije stroom van arbeiders over de bol omhoog volledige volkeren wortel zal schieten en hen in een zielloos systeem van benutting en maximalisering van winsten zal dwingen. Om deze vier stromen te beveiligen, denkt de militaire strategie van de V.S. na om een vijfde stroom te vestigen: dat van „de Strategische Diensten van de V.S.“, wat eigenlijk betekent: Oorlog op elke natie die tegen de implementatie van de stromen verzetten zich.

Waar Marx Kapitalisme „„kritiseert, is het altijd deze vorm van kapitalisme dat hij heeft beschreven. Vanuit het perspectief van vroege 19. eeuw Duitsland, is dit onwaar aangezien er daadwerkelijke middelen om waren markten te beperken en te matigen door de wetgeving ten gunste van nationaal welzijn op te leggen. Hoofdargument van Marx het‘ is: In een economie aangezien hij het beschrijft, is de revolutie een noodzaak. Maar aangezien Marx als revolutie een noodzaak hoe dan ook, waarom dingen niet laten werkelijk slecht voor de massa’s eerst blijken beschouwt. Daarom werden de meest gewetenloze kapitalisten, de internationale bankiers en de Marxisten altijd langs zo zeer goed voor de laatste 150 jaar. De marxisten, in feite, zelfs zijn de bankiers‘ stormtroopers die hun vuil maar noodzakelijk werk doen.

Het marxistische systeem van regel zal of manier, zij het via een Marxistische revolutie of als kruipende dreiging komen, aangezien het vandaag is. Noch zal het Westelijke liberalisme noch het klassieke Marxisme de Europese en Amerikaanse maatschappijen uit die schaarbeweging leiden. Misschien kan een overweging van de sinds lang gevestigde maar lang-vergeten continentale theorieën van holistic economie een uitweg verstrekken.

III. de Propaganda van de oorlog

Na de totstandbrenging van grote natiestaten, werden de grote bevindende legers, en opgezet om aan deze legers een betekenis te verstrekken van wat waren zij voor, moesten de staten propaganda op grotere schaal leiden. De westelijke bevoegdheden, vooral Groot-Brittannië, hadden zeer vroeg dit punt. Groot-Brittannië was de stuwende kracht in het encirculating van het Duitse Duitse Rijk, aangezien het, van de positie van Nr 1, van om het even welke het gezamenlijke misschien toenemen op het Continent bang was. om een oorlog tegen Duitsland voor te bereiden propagandistically, werd het Tavistock Institute „op Menselijke Relaties „opgericht. Ooit vernomen het? En het bestaat nog, 100 jaar nu. Dit instituut instrumentalized belastering, infamie en ligt voor de oorzaak van het demonizing van Duitsland als mensen.

om oorlog te krijgen verkochten de banden aan eenvoudige Britse burgers voor de oorlogsmaatregelen van financierend Groot-Brittannië, de opstelling van het Instituut in hun propagandaaffiches het idee van Duitsland die naar het veroveren van de gehele wereld en het verslaven van Britten streven. Zij spreiden de leugens van Duitse militairen uit die babys‘ afsnijden handen, Belgische nonnen verkrachten en gevallen Britse militairen verwerken in varkensvoedsel – zelfs in WWI!

Er is deze persoon genoemd Edward Bernays. Hij was een Amerikaanse Jood, een neef aan Sigmund Freud. Aangezien het Joodse netwerk Amerika met Groot-Brittannië tegen Duitsland wilde samenwerken, ging Bernays naar Groot-Brittannië en werkte in het Tavistock Institute met het doel van het propagandizing unto de Amerikaanse Mensen tot zij oorlog tegen Duitsland geloofden, wie de V.S. niet grensten aan en dat nooit een directe bedreiging voor het, was een noodzaak vormde. Kunt u aan een grotere handeling van verraad dan krijgend uw geboorteland in een oorlog ten gunste van een buitenlandse macht, zonder de lichtste interesse voor zich denken? Nadat de oorlog had gebeëindigd, instrumentalized Bernays enkele propagandistic technieken om en voor openbare campagnes te adverteren, die Public relations genoemd geworden werden.

Duitsland had niets tegen dit perfidy te plaatsen. Het probeerde om de feiten en de cijfers over nationaal die onderwijs, uitgaven voor de strijdkrachten en de hoeveelheid oorlogsschepen worden gebouwd om de beschuldigingen ongeldig te maken van het zijn barbaarse „„, „oorlog-zoekt „of militarist „„voor te stellen. Jammer genoeg, is de waarheid over deze onderwerpen slechts presentabel als aantallen, en de propagandaaffiches die aantallen voorstellen zijn niet zeer vermeend om volkeren‘ te vangen ogen en in geld van oorlogsbanden te brengen. Slechts vanaf 1917, maakten de Duitsers hun eerste beeld-slechts propagandaaffiche, die een militair met woorden„uns siegen Helft „(help ons winnen) tonen. Het hief tien keer het resultaat van de vorige affiches op. Tragisch, vóór Duitsland verloren WWI militarically, propagandistically verloor het de oorlog.

En deze die tragedie zelfs in WO.II wordt herhaald, aangezien Duitsland gevolgen van de propagandaramp in WWI had getrokken. Het Ministerie van Goebbels‘ voor Openbare Verlichting en Propaganda, die later is geweest demonized aangezien de vertellende beruchte leugens, eigenlijk net een manier hadden gevonden om dingen in boeiende krantekoppen te zetten propagandistic takken terwijl van de Bondgenoten‘ duivelsere leugens over de wereld uitspreidden. Jammer genoeg, de macht die veel minder loog verloor opnieuw en werd toen beschuldigd van alle zonden elke het vechten macht had begaan. Enkel kijk omhoog de naam van Ilja Ehrenburg als u wilt het weten van welke soort de de oorlogspropaganda van de Bondgenoten‘ was.

IV. The situation in Germany today

Any German who still thinks the German education system will provide him with an adequate mindset is hopelessly enslaved by the Matrix. Germany today is not a free country, but the elites never stop praising their system as „the most democratic, the most free state ever in existence on German soil“. In fact, you are free to consume drugs, you are free to kill your children as long as they are yet unborn, you are free marching naked through the streets on one of those notorious CSDs – but you are NOT free to call this kind of „freedom“ decadent and menacing to our future. You are also not free to claim that the procreation of imported Islamic minorities will not only put these symptoms of decadence to an end but also will bury the small rest of our civil rights when they start struggling for the installation of Sharia Courts.

This struggle is IMO about to come, but I don’t consider it to be possibly successful. Islamists have been brought in in masses to destroy the traditional character of the country, to riot in the streets and to stoke fears among the populace, but the main purpose is to make the peoples more likely to accept a totalitarian control system, a Police state which is designed mainly by the EU. The Federal Republic is even eager to deconstruct its own statehood, its own possibility to handle the coming conflicts because the FRG-Pseudo-Elites are so eager for careers in Bruxelles and are, of course, highly confident in the European Utopia. What the average German says about this bureaucratic juggernaut doesn’t matter at all, as with modern media manipulation tools in „modern-day Democracy“, the „Souvereign“ (i.e. the average) can be forced into arbitrary states of mind.

In 2007, I took part in a demonstration in Bruxelles on September 11th in order to commemorate the victims of the New York atrocity. At that time I was still very much „critical to Islam“ and believed the lie set up by people like Ralph Giordano („Not migration is the problem, but Islam is“ – in fact it’s just the other way round). But nevertheless the event was forbidden by the Communist Bruxelles mayor (in Belgium, unlike in Germany, mayors even have the power to forbid demonstrations). Heavy armed police forces were out on the streets, with armored cars on every corner. I saw a man arrested for nothing but standing with a Crucifix and recitating verses from the Bible. I saw people getting handcuffed for flying national flags. Later I heard that there were even MdEPs (Members of European Parliament) and members of the national parliament of Belgium, of the group Vlaams Belang, heavily beaten up and taken into arrest. The Bruxelles mayor had deliberately ordered French-speaking police forces from the Walloonia to „pacify“ the situation, exploiting the inner-Belgian national conflict for his purposes. In Bruxelles, the Muslim part of the population was then already 57%, and the Communist Party led a coalition with several Islamic fractions in the town hall.

In 2008, there was a rally organized in Cologne called „Antiislamisierungskongreß“. A few hundred demonstrators were present, but the official city government organized a counter-demonstration which consisted of more than 20,000 leftists and „Gutmenschen“. The mayor of Cologne, whose son was even killed by a Turkish car driver in 2001, called the conservative demonstrators „braune Soße, die ins Klo gehört“ (brown sauce belonging into a toilet). The Police „failed“ in protecting the demonstrators, of which some were heavily beaten up. A river boat they had rented for the day was thrown at with stones so it almost sank. Finally the whole event had to be blown off. Leftist and militant „Antifa“ forces, indoctrinated school classes, Marxist priests with their also indoctrinated parishes join forces with the official administration – and in the future also with the police – against those who simply rally for Germany to keep its German character. This mess is called „Aufstand der Anständigen“ (Rise of the Righteous).
To provide oneself with a more adequate picture of his country’s very own history, one has to really be both courageous and creative. There is a newspaper which is in fact just a little bit more right-winged than the Allied-licensed press cartel (Junge Freiheit). It comes out weekly on Fridays. Sometimes when I wanted a copy, all the copies from my local kiosque were sold out by Friday 12:00 and no copies were left. This wasn’t because of a high demand for the paper but because the copies were not delivered to the kiosque – some leftist working for the delivery company had got behind what was in the package and simply annihilated it. In another press shop I asked for that newspaper and almost was kicked out by the shopkeeper, who then got a highly red head and almost wasn’t able to speak properly how much she despised of „people reading such papers“, and she „didn’t want to have to do with such papers“.

And the Junge Freiheit is long not capable of providing you the entire picture. Articles on general history dealing with the national socialist epoque are quite sparse. I most profited from reading the „Deutsche Geschichte“, a revisionist magazine which appears six times a year. The Editor reported of one case in which shopkeepers were threatened to get their shops burnt down by Leftists for just having the Deutsche Geschichte in its shop! The Editor also organizes meetings with Revisionist experts. Those meetings regularly have to be cancelled, as there are Leftists who „inform“ the hotel owners on what kind of historical views their guests have, and then the hotel clerks refuse to grant access for the referents.

This is also the way Leftists deal with unwelcome political forces such as „Die Freiheit“ (which internally is, in fact, more liberal than the CDU) or „Pro Deutschland“. These groups are simply unable to find a location to conduct their party meetings at because the location owners always get „informed“ and then act as expected. Nobody can publicly allow himself to be courageous, as reputation can – and will – be immediately destroyed. Would you want to resist a force which is willing to rip you off everything you own and even threatens to harm your home and family?

The head of the right-wing NPD, Udo Voigt, also once got kicked out of a hotel where he was spending his vacation. The hotel owner’s „explanation“ was that the other hotel guests’ right for an undisturbed stay at the hotel would outweigh the right of Mr. Voigt to stay in the hotel. Furthermore, as a private businessman he was able to decide who he wanted to have business with and with whom not. Mr. Voigt went to a court, which ruled that the hotel owner was right in doing so.
Such was the state of the German Nation in the past decade, and the actual decade is far from doing any better.

Diesen Beitrag weiterlesen »

Quatre thèses sur l’Allemagne et l’ouest

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

par Schattenkoenig

Pour se préparer à une entrevue avec Carolyn Yeager, Schattenkoenig a établi en anglais les pensées suivantes pour accentuer quelques aspects cruciaux de la situation de l’Allemagne (et, généralement l’ouest).

I. Le concept allemand de Geopolitik

Le terme décrit un contour des stratégies politiques globales portées sur le Reich allemand et fondées dans la tradition des vues holistiques qui avaient dominé la pensée allemande depuis les Moyens Âges, quand le Reich (Saint Empire Romain de nation germanique) avait formé un genre de croisillon de commande pour les nations qui ont maintenu leur autonomie et caractère national. Dans le nouvel âge, un point de vue plus génétique a été établi, donnant le respect caractères à différents peuples des‘.

Le plus important semble à moi l’enracinement de l’Allemand Geopolitik dans une perspective scientifique et rationnellement gagnée de ce qui est donné naturellement. Il pense aux peuples en date de ce que sont vraiment ils et de ce que sont leurs potentiels réalistes, au lieu de former des peuples selon une certaine idéologie utopique qui est insuffisante pour la réalité. Les puissances victorieuses au-dessus de l’Allemagne en 1945 malheureusement suivaient des concepts idéologiques et ont eu peu de respect des états naturels pour peuples‘. Si la réalité fait échouer leurs vues utopiques, plus elles le font s’avérer pour mal la réalité qui seront forcées au changement de „« – jusqu’à tout le monde se réveilleront dans une nouvelle Union Soviétique totalitaire et globe-enjambante sans la liberté laissée pour parler les faits.

Geopolitik se rendait entièrement compte du fait qu’il y avait des puissances dans le monde visant érigeant un système totalitaire et artificiel si global. Les intellectuels allemands avaient entièrement identifié le capitalisme et le marxisme libéraux occidentaux en tant que deux côtés d’une médaille ou, dans d’une meilleure analogie, des deux bras dans un mouvement de pince dans le but d’accabler toutes les nations et de les mélanger dans un système économique du monde. Geopolitik était une théorie défensive contre ces tentatives entreprises par la France, Grande-Bretagne et, plus tard, par l‘Union Soviétique.

L’idéal de la géopolitique allemande était la nation organique de „« , a défini en tant que les personnes physiquement, moralement et économiquement en bonne santé réalisant de façon optimale ses potentiels donnés. L’économie nationale devait être sauvegardée de la dépendance aux intérêts extérieurs, donc un essayer d’obtenir l’autarcie de „« a été adopté. Une nation qui peut produire tout il a besoin et consomme chez leurs pensionnaires gardés est moins pour être faite du chantage ou étouffée en cas de conflit.

Ce concept était déjà une motivation forte avant la Première Guerre Mondiale, et les socialistes nationaux ont ajouté le concept de la pureté raciale de „« pendant qu’ils croyaient le caractère d’un peuple et même de ses décisions politiques determinated par sa génétique. Ceci a également mené aux erreurs bloquantes, par exemple pendant qu’ils s’attendaient à ce que l’Angleterre soit un allié naturel contre la France et la Russie. Elles ne pourraient pas avoir été autres de ce qui alors s’est vraiment produit, car la Grande-Bretagne (et également les États-Unis) ont été complètement minés et renversés par une puissance clandestine capable de dominer un peuple totalement, économiquement et mentalement.

Pendant que les personnes allemandes étaient toujours dans la croissance démographique alors le concept a été développé, et l’Allemagne a déjà eu une densité de population élevée, le concept importance gagnée de „de Lebensraum « . Même l’idée qu’une plus petite nation qui n’a eu aucune occasion de gagner l’autarcie et la force sur leurs propres moyens était de disparaître et mener à son plus grand voisin semble avoir monté des premiers concepts, et a été seulement popularisée par Hitler et les socialistes nationaux comme genre de darwinisme social des nations. Le concept n’a rien à faire avec des génocides ou des peuples d’extermination en faveur d’un autre, mais car il y avait une théorie dans laquelle les pays aiment la Belgique, le Luxembourg ou la Pologne n’a eu aucune perspective d’exister beaucoup plus longtemps, ce ne semble plus une grande chose pour les essuyer outre de la carte délibérément et pour soumettre leurs peuples au dominion allemand.

Le Geopolitik a également eu peu de respect pour les frontières existantes en raison de l’état naturel de l’Allemagne n’ayant aucune frontière naturelle et ayant donc été sujette à des intrusions étrangères pendant des siècles (par exemple les trente années‘ de guerre). Le seul pensionnaire d’intérêt était le „Volksgrenze « , qui a été permis d’augmenter, également menant aux moyens militaires, si les personnes allemandes augmentaient continuellement.

II. Concept allemand et occidental de la science économique

D’une manière semblable comme Geopolitik, la position allemande sur des sciences économiques était intégrée et holistique. C’avait toujours été un consensus, même au delà du pensionnaire allemand, que les marchés totalement incontrôlés constituent une menace grave pour la liberté et la sécurité des peuples et même pourraient finir dans la famine généralisée et le génocide. Dans une économie incontrôlée au moyen de „l’état « là serait viser actif de joueurs à un contrôle toujours plus grand du marché et à des bénéfices toujours plus grands, et plus le bénéfice un joueur pourrait faire, le plus puissant et moins scrupuleux il deviendrait, et comme il s’inquiète pas de l’aide sociale mais seulement du sien des personnes bénéfice, le résultat serait un grand monopole avec des prix des choses de besoin fondamental que le consommateur moyen ne peut pas payer.

Les scientifiques économiques allemands, et même d’autres pays européens tels que la France, l’Italie ou l’Angleterre, se rendaient compte que, afin d’atteindre le but de la prospérité nationale, là ait dû être établi une économie contrôlée par l’État pour des choses des besoins fondamentaux, tels que l’eau, l’électricité, la nourriture, la communication et le transport.

Si vous parlez aux liberalists économiques aujourd’hui et proposez ce fait, ils dénonceront habituellement de tels genres de pensées pour être marxiste de „« , „socialiste « ou d’autres mots durs. Ils inhalated le concept de la liberté totale de chaque mouvement économique, particulièrement de celle des peuples et de l’argent. Tandis qu’ils font ainsi dans oder pour faire taire l’opposition même avant qu’elle peut développer ses pensées complètement, elles ne pourraient pas être autres de la vérité. En fait, le concept de la liberté totale du marché est en soi beaucoup plus marxiste que l’approche continentale traditionnelle à l’économie.

Le libéralisme, pendant qu’il domine des discussions scientifiques et politiques aujourd’hui, vient d’une école de pensée complètement différente qui n’a aucune racine dans la théorie traditionnelle de sciences économiques nationales. Ceux qui ont formulé les travaux essentiels sur l’économie libérale ont eu leur expérience personnelle pas dans le domaine du travail et de l’approvisionnement fonctionnants ou de organisations pour les personnes dans un certain secteur mais plutôt occupées de commercial transrégional ou sur les marchés boursiers. Par conséquent ce n’est pas une surprise que leur propre intérêt économique vient pour dominer leur bâtiment théorique. Ces personnes ont transformé leur intérêt pour aucune frontières pour le commerce en loi économique centrale de „« , bien que ce ne soit aucun droit naturel comme loi de la gravité mais demande à la législation.

Aujourd’hui la théorie de „« de marchés libres, qui est en fait une manière merveilleusement sans problème pour actionner globalement les soucis commerciaux pour gagner des montants considérables de bénéfice, ose même forcer les écoulements fondamentaux du „quatre « sur chaque nation simple. Ces écoulements sont : Argent (Investitions dedans et bénéfices), marchandises (ON DOIT permettre des ressources naturelles partout, produits dedans partout), information (au sujet des facteurs de production) et main d’oeuvre. La dernière chose de ces derniers est la plus dangereuse de tous, car une circulation des travailleurs à travers le globe s’enracinera vers le haut des peuples entiers et les forcera dans un système sans coeur de l’exploitation et la maximisation des bénéfices. Pour fixer ces quatre écoulements, la stratégie militaire des États-Unis considère établir un cinquième écoulement : cela « des services stratégiques des États-Unis », qui réellement moyens : Guerre sur chaque nation résistant à l’exécution des écoulements.

Là où Marx critique le capitalisme de „« , c’est toujours cette forme de capitalisme qu’il décrit. De la perspective 19. du siècle tôt Allemagne, ceci est tout faux qu’il y avait des moyens réels de limiter et de modérer des marchés par la législation imposante en faveur d’aide sociale nationale. L’argument principal de Marx‘ est : Dans une économie car il la décrit, la révolution est une nécessité. Mais car Marx considère la révolution une nécessité de toute façon, pourquoi les choses non laissées s’avèrent vraiment mauvais pour les masses d’abord. Par conséquent les capitalistes les plus sans scrupules, les banquiers internationaux et les marxistes toujours obtenus le long tellement très de bon pendant les 150 dernières années. Les marxistes, en fait, sont même stormtroopers des banquiers les‘ qui effectuent leur travail sale mais nécessaire.

Le système de la règle marxiste viendra manière, que ce soit par l’intermédiaire d’une révolution marxiste ou comme menace de rampement, car c’est aujourd’hui. Ni le libéralisme occidental ni le marxisme classique ne mènera les sociétés européennes et américaines hors de ce mouvement de pince. Peut-être une considération des théories continentales existantes depuis longtemps mais oubliées depuis longtemps de sciences économiques holistiques peut fournir une sortie.

III. Propagande de guerre

Après l’établissement de grands états nation, de grandes armées debout ont été mises, et afin de fournir à ces armées un sens pour de ce qu’ils étaient, les états ont dû conduire la propagande sur une plus grande échelle. Les pouvoirs occidentaux, particulièrement Grande-Bretagne, ont eu ce point très tôt. La Grande-Bretagne était la force d’entraînement dans encirculating le Reich allemand, car elle, de la position de no. 1, avait peur du concurrent se levant probablement sur le continent. Afin de préparer une guerre contre l’Allemagne à grand renfort de propagande, le Tavistock Institute de „sur des relations humaines « a été fondé. Jamais entendu parler lui ? Et il est toujours en existence, pendant 100 années maintenant. Cet institut instrumentalized la diffamation, l’infamie et les mensonges pour la cause de demonizing l’Allemagne en tant que peuple.

Afin d’obtenir des titres d’emprunt de guerre s’est vendue aux citoyens britanniques simples pour financer les mesures de la guerre de la Grande-Bretagne, l’institut installé en leurs affiches de propagande l’idée de l’Allemagne visant conquérant le monde entier et asservissant Britanniques. Elles ont écarté les mensonges des soldats allemands mains découpant bébés des‘, violant les nonnes belges et transformant les soldats britanniques tombés en nourriture de porcs – même dans WWI !

Il y a cette personne appelée Edouard Bernays. Il était un juif américain, un neveu à Sigmund Freud. Car le réseau juif a voulu que l’Amérique adhérât à des forces avec la Grande-Bretagne contre l’Allemagne, Bernays est allé en Grande-Bretagne et a fonctionné dans le Tavistock Institute dans le but de la propagation aux personnes américaines jusqu’à ce qu’elles aient cru la guerre contre l’Allemagne, à laquelle les États-Unis n’ont pas encadré et à laquelle n’a jamais constitué une menace directe pour elle, était une nécessité. Pouvez-vous penser à un plus grand acte de trahison qu’entrant votre patrie dans une guerre en faveur d’une puissance étrangère, sans plus léger intérêt pour lui-même ? Après que la guerre ait fini, Bernays instrumentalized certaines des techniques militantes pour annoncer et pour les campagnes publiques, qui sont devenues notoires en tant que relations publiques.

L’Allemagne n’a eu rien à placer contre cette perfidie. Elle a essayé de présenter les faits et les chiffres au sujet de l’éducation nationale, de la dépense les forces armées et de la quantité de bateaux de guerre construits pour infirmer les accusations d’être „barbare « , „qui recherche la guerre « ou militariste de „« . Malheureusement, la vérité au sujet de ces sujets est seulement présentable comme nombres, et les affiches de propagande présentant des nombres ne sont pas très supposées yeux attraper peuples des‘ et les apporter l’argent des titres d’emprunt de guerre. Seulement à partir de 1917, les Allemands ont fait leur première affiche réservée à l’image de propagande, montrant un soldat avec le siegen d’uns de Helft de „de mots « (aidez-nous victoire). Elle a soulevé dix fois le résultat des affiches précédentes. Tragiquement, avant que l’Allemagne ait perdu WWI militarically, elle a perdu la guerre à grand renfort de propagande.

Et cette tragédie même répétée dans WWII, comme l’Allemagne avait tiré des conséquences de la catastrophe de propagande dans WWI. Les branches militantes des alliés de Goebbels le‘ ministère de l’éclaircissement public et de la propagande, qui plus tard demonized en tant que dire des mensonges infâmes, avait réellement juste trouvé une manière de mettre des choses dans les titres entraînants tandis que‘ écartaient des mensonges bien plus diaboliques au-dessus du monde. Malheureusement, la puissance qui s’est trouvée beaucoup moins perdu encore et a été puis blâmée de tous les péchés chaque puissance de combat avait commis. Recherchez juste le nom d’Ilja Ehrenburg si vous voulez savoir de quelle sorte propagande de guerre des alliés la‘ était.

IV. The situation in Germany today

Any German who still thinks the German education system will provide him with an adequate mindset is hopelessly enslaved by the Matrix. Germany today is not a free country, but the elites never stop praising their system as „the most democratic, the most free state ever in existence on German soil“. In fact, you are free to consume drugs, you are free to kill your children as long as they are yet unborn, you are free marching naked through the streets on one of those notorious CSDs – but you are NOT free to call this kind of „freedom“ decadent and menacing to our future. You are also not free to claim that the procreation of imported Islamic minorities will not only put these symptoms of decadence to an end but also will bury the small rest of our civil rights when they start struggling for the installation of Sharia Courts.

This struggle is IMO about to come, but I don’t consider it to be possibly successful. Islamists have been brought in in masses to destroy the traditional character of the country, to riot in the streets and to stoke fears among the populace, but the main purpose is to make the peoples more likely to accept a totalitarian control system, a Police state which is designed mainly by the EU. The Federal Republic is even eager to deconstruct its own statehood, its own possibility to handle the coming conflicts because the FRG-Pseudo-Elites are so eager for careers in Bruxelles and are, of course, highly confident in the European Utopia. What the average German says about this bureaucratic juggernaut doesn’t matter at all, as with modern media manipulation tools in „modern-day Democracy“, the „Souvereign“ (i.e. the average) can be forced into arbitrary states of mind.

In 2007, I took part in a demonstration in Bruxelles on September 11th in order to commemorate the victims of the New York atrocity. At that time I was still very much „critical to Islam“ and believed the lie set up by people like Ralph Giordano („Not migration is the problem, but Islam is“ – in fact it’s just the other way round). But nevertheless the event was forbidden by the Communist Bruxelles mayor (in Belgium, unlike in Germany, mayors even have the power to forbid demonstrations). Heavy armed police forces were out on the streets, with armored cars on every corner. I saw a man arrested for nothing but standing with a Crucifix and recitating verses from the Bible. I saw people getting handcuffed for flying national flags. Later I heard that there were even MdEPs (Members of European Parliament) and members of the national parliament of Belgium, of the group Vlaams Belang, heavily beaten up and taken into arrest. The Bruxelles mayor had deliberately ordered French-speaking police forces from the Walloonia to „pacify“ the situation, exploiting the inner-Belgian national conflict for his purposes. In Bruxelles, the Muslim part of the population was then already 57%, and the Communist Party led a coalition with several Islamic fractions in the town hall.

In 2008, there was a rally organized in Cologne called „Antiislamisierungskongreß“. A few hundred demonstrators were present, but the official city government organized a counter-demonstration which consisted of more than 20,000 leftists and „Gutmenschen“. The mayor of Cologne, whose son was even killed by a Turkish car driver in 2001, called the conservative demonstrators „braune Soße, die ins Klo gehört“ (brown sauce belonging into a toilet). The Police „failed“ in protecting the demonstrators, of which some were heavily beaten up. A river boat they had rented for the day was thrown at with stones so it almost sank. Finally the whole event had to be blown off. Leftist and militant „Antifa“ forces, indoctrinated school classes, Marxist priests with their also indoctrinated parishes join forces with the official administration – and in the future also with the police – against those who simply rally for Germany to keep its German character. This mess is called „Aufstand der Anständigen“ (Rise of the Righteous).
To provide oneself with a more adequate picture of his country’s very own history, one has to really be both courageous and creative. There is a newspaper which is in fact just a little bit more right-winged than the Allied-licensed press cartel (Junge Freiheit). It comes out weekly on Fridays. Sometimes when I wanted a copy, all the copies from my local kiosque were sold out by Friday 12:00 and no copies were left. This wasn’t because of a high demand for the paper but because the copies were not delivered to the kiosque – some leftist working for the delivery company had got behind what was in the package and simply annihilated it. In another press shop I asked for that newspaper and almost was kicked out by the shopkeeper, who then got a highly red head and almost wasn’t able to speak properly how much she despised of „people reading such papers“, and she „didn’t want to have to do with such papers“.

And the Junge Freiheit is long not capable of providing you the entire picture. Articles on general history dealing with the national socialist epoque are quite sparse. I most profited from reading the „Deutsche Geschichte“, a revisionist magazine which appears six times a year. The Editor reported of one case in which shopkeepers were threatened to get their shops burnt down by Leftists for just having the Deutsche Geschichte in its shop! The Editor also organizes meetings with Revisionist experts. Those meetings regularly have to be cancelled, as there are Leftists who „inform“ the hotel owners on what kind of historical views their guests have, and then the hotel clerks refuse to grant access for the referents.

This is also the way Leftists deal with unwelcome political forces such as „Die Freiheit“ (which internally is, in fact, more liberal than the CDU) or „Pro Deutschland“. These groups are simply unable to find a location to conduct their party meetings at because the location owners always get „informed“ and then act as expected. Nobody can publicly allow himself to be courageous, as reputation can – and will – be immediately destroyed. Would you want to resist a force which is willing to rip you off everything you own and even threatens to harm your home and family?

The head of the right-wing NPD, Udo Voigt, also once got kicked out of a hotel where he was spending his vacation. The hotel owner’s „explanation“ was that the other hotel guests’ right for an undisturbed stay at the hotel would outweigh the right of Mr. Voigt to stay in the hotel. Furthermore, as a private businessman he was able to decide who he wanted to have business with and with whom not. Mr. Voigt went to a court, which ruled that the hotel owner was right in doing so.
Such was the state of the German Nation in the past decade, and the actual decade is far from doing any better.

Diesen Beitrag weiterlesen »

Hostility Towards Germans Part II: German Self-Hatred and Leftist Ideology

Written by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage  

Translated by J M Damon

<Following is a translation of a German blog posted at <http://korrektheiten.com/2011/08/04/deutschenfeindlichkeit-teil-2-deutscher-selbsthass-und-linke-ideologie/>

[Part I of my lecture on “Hostility Towards Germans” dealt with the ideology that has resulted from the anti German narrative in the West.
I described how and why this ideology has always been and will always be inappropriate for Germany.
In the following section I discuss the consequences that necessarily derive from the adoption of this narrative by the Germans themselves.
In conclusion I discuss the role played by leftist ideology in the overall complex of hostility toward Germans.]

German Adoption of the Western anti German Narrative

As the result of the powerful effect of various venues of American propaganda following World War II, a cataclysmic shift took place in German political thinking. It was a shift in the direction of the Anglo Saxon ideology of revolutionary liberalism and later Marxism. In both cases it consisted of the acceptance of the basic assumptions of the revolutionary Meta-Ideology.

Among other things, this created a “We – You” differentiation based on ideology rather than ethnicity or national political basis.   The new norm was accepted as a matter of course, until “We” were no longer Germans or even the Europeans. “We” became a party in the global ideological civil war (“The West,” “Western Community of Values,” or “The Free World”). “We” became whoever shared revolutionary Utopian ideals.

Following the demise of the Soviet Union ever larger portions of the Left have come over to this “We,” as is quite obvious from the comet like careers of former “‘68ers”.

For the victorious powers, this new definition of the We-group, based on ideological allegiance meant a latent contradiction in their self-identity as nations. This was true not only for the Russians, who had fought more for Mother Russia than Communism (but whose victory served Communism more than Russia); it was also true for Americans and Britons. It was not easy to equate “My Country Right or Wrong” with the latest scheme to “make the world safe for Democracy.” As we have seen, these contradictions were just latent for the wartime Allies since they had fought as nations rather than as standard bearers for abstract ideas.

Among us Germans the contradictions were more than latent. They could not be ignored the instant we adopted the narratives and Utopian ideologies of our victorious enemies, as we did after the Second World War. A national “We Group” is a supragenerational community that includes past generations as well as those yet to come. The logic that compels a German Chancellor to participte in Allied victory celebrations in Paris, Normandy and Moscow implies that both world wars were battles in European and global civil wars.
They were gigantic struggles won by “The Western Community of Values” or simply “Democracy” (in Russia’s case, it was Utopian ideology as such) over the Forces of Darkness, and since “we” (re-educated, reconstructed Germans) belonged to this community of values, “we” were among the victors whereas „the Germans“ (i.e. the strange people which called itself „the Germans“), the embodiment of all evil, were the losers.

The German adoption of Western Ideology and of Meta-Ideology in general implies a loss of identification with our own VOLK. It compels us to consider our own VOLK as the enemy, to abhor ourselves as an outgrowth of evil and to hate our own forbears. Germany is the only country in the world that erects monuments to traitors and deserters, the only country in which it is considered exemplary to spit on the grave of one’s grandparents. The historical narrative of the victors – with its global political concepts, its highflown Utopian worldview – can never be the narrative of Germans who want to be German. If they adopt it, it will be at the cost of self-obliteration. The contradiction between being German and being part of a historical subject called „Western community of values“ is  unbridgeable.

The problem is underscored rather than solved by lame efforts to unite incompatibles in formulaic compromises such as “constitutional patriotism.”
This hostility towards one’s own VOLK is specifically German, as is illustrated than by the fact that the so-called “anti Germans” (as they call themselves!) comprise the only political grouping that refers to itself with the word “German.”  Not even the Neonazis do that, as they refer to themselves simply as “nationals,” emphasizing that they consider nationalism to be something good in itself – not only for Germans but for everyone. The anti Germans, by contrast, express the opposite wish: they want to eradicate the German VOLK, but not necessarily the very concept VOLK. Interestingly, they are attempting to do this through ideological rationalization, precisely what I identified as the foundation of anti German hostility in Part I of this series: The idea that Germany is (or was) the epitome of anti Utopian, anti globalistic counterrevolutionary force normally goes unstated except among anti Germans. My analysis is not far removed from that of the anti Germans; only the qualifying prefixes are reversed.

Leftist Ideology

Inner logic compels societies that support the fundamental assumptions of liberal Utopianism to quickly become involved with its hostile twin, Marxism – Socialism. In general terms we can refer to them both as Leftist Ideology. Whoever condemns society’s power imbalances on the basis that they are not founded in rationalism, and believes these imbalances are evil and must be stamped out, should not be surprised when the imbalance between rich and poor also comes under the crosshairs of criticism. Whoever champions freedom and equality as universally valid, and as basic values of society, has to deal with opposition to freedom in the name of equality. The Marxists who actively oppose capital because its power is not rationally legitimate but rather arises through automatism (derived from the nature of capitalism itself), leading to the mastery of one class over the other, rely on the same logic as the liberals who polemicize against church and king. In some regards Marxists are more consistent than liberals, since they condemn all social inequalities. For example, they condemn inequality between rich and poor; employed and unemployed; the citizen and the state; and between parents and children as well as majority and minority (either ethnic or religious).

From the point of Leftist ideology the more powerful party is illegitimate simply because it is more powerful. This implies that it should not be allowed to deal with the weaker on the basis of “merely formal” equality before the law, but must be actively disadvantaged. Correspondingly, from this point of view, it is not injustice to plunder the rich for the benefit of the poor or the employed for the benefit of the unemployed. Leftist Ideology assumes that the law and the state are repressive, since they use the same measuring stick to measure dissimilar entities, instead of causing what is unequal to be equal; and needless to say, there are no laws to protect the majority from the minority. On page 28 of “DEUTSCHE OPFER, FREMDE TÄTER” Götz Kubitschek and Michael Paulwitz cite a typically Leftist position asserting that racism against Germans cannot exist. This is because racism is a medium of repression that by its very nature cannot be inflicted on a majority by a minority because of the minority’s lesser social power to enforce its will.

In simple language this means that the “weaker party,” that is, an ethnic minority, is allowed to do everything, whereas the “stronger” (in Germany, the Germans) are not allowed to do anything, but must endure everything.
The power that is presumed to be stronger is automatically the evil power since it benefits from the alleged repression (that it also reinforces.)

Furthermore: since the mere existence of power disparity is the “evil” to be faced and fought, a belated “equalizing” injustice will no longer suffice.
The very basis of the power imbalance must be eliminated: wealth itself; or, as is especially pertinent to our theme, the ethnic majority must be eliminated.
From the point of view of the Left, a majority VOLK or ethnic group has no right to exist.

The Left is not satisfied with representing the interests of the “weak;” it is determined to delegitimize the “strong.” In our country the Left deligitimizes the interests of Germans, Christians, men, nonfeminist or nonlesbian women, whites, heterosexuals and gainfully employed workers. In other words, the Left opposes the interests of the majority and seeks to either force these majorities into the minority or else annihilate them altogether. This is the logic behind the policy of de-Christianization, de-Germanization, de-Europeanization, feminization and the promotion of homosexuality.
Only the gainfully employed cannot be abolished; however, it is permissible to pick their pockets, since they have placed themselves in an evil and repressive position just by existing from the fruits of their own labor.

It is self-evident that such a policy cannot possibly be democratic, since it is systematically directed against the majority. Thus leftist ideology naturally results in the propagation of demophobia (fear of the masses), de-democratization and coups d’etat. Of course it finds allies in minorities of every description.

All this has to do with the psychology of minorities in general, which is characterized by deep resentments. The minorities feel that the way of life of the majority, in which they are unable and unwilling to participate, should at least be spoiled for the majority. A good illustration of minority resentment is the bum who urinates in the vestibule of the bank. Racism against Germans is just one variation of this sort of resentment although a significant one.
Leftist ideology seeks to mobilize such destructiveness.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Four Theses on Germany and the West

by Schattenkoenig

To prepare for an interview with Carolyn Yeager, Schattenkoenig worked out in English the following thoughts to highlight some crucial aspects of Germany’s (and, in general, the West’s) situation.

I. The German concept of Geopolitik

The term describes an outline of global political strategies centered on the German Reich and founded in the tradition of holistic views which had dominated German thinking since the Middle Ages, when the Reich (Holy Roman Empire of Germanic Nation) had formed a kind of ordering brace for nations which maintained their autonomy and national character. In the new age, a more genetic viewpoint was established, giving respect to different peoples’ characters.

Most important seems to me the rooting of German Geopolitik in a scientific and rationally gained perspective of what is given naturally. It thinks of peoples as of what they really are and what their realistic potentials are, instead of forming peoples according to some utopian ideology which is inadequate for reality. The powers victorious over Germany in 1945 were unfortunately following ideological concepts and had little respect for peoples’ natural conditions. If reality causes their utopian views to fail, the worse they make it turn out for reality which will be forced to „change“ – until all the world will wake up in a new totalitarian and globe-spanning Soviet Union with no freedom left to speak out the facts.

Geopolitik was fully aware of the fact that there were powers in the world aiming at erecting such a global totalitarian and artificial system. The German intellectuals had fully recognized Western Liberal Capitalism and Marxism as two sides of one medal or, in a better analogy, two arms in a pincer movement with the goal of overwhelming all nations and blending them into a world economic system. Geopolitik was a defensive theory against these attempts undertaken by France, Great Britain and, later, by the Soviet Union.

The Ideal of German Geopolitics was the „organic nation“, defined as a physically, morally and economically healthy people optimally realizing its given potentials. The national economy was to be safeguarded from dependence to outward interests, therefore a strive for „autarky“ was adopted. A nation which is able to produce everything it needs and consumes within their guarded boarders is less likely to be blackmailed or stifled in case of conflict.

This concept was already a strong motivation before World War I, and the National Socialists added the concept of „racial purity“ as they believed the character of a people and even its political decisions being determinated by its genetics. This also led to fatal errors, e.g. as they expected England to be a natural ally against France and Russia. They couldn’t have been further from what then really happened, as Britain (and also the U.S.) were completely undermined and subverted by a clandestine power capable of dominating a people totally, economically and mentally.

As the German people was still in demographic growth at the time the concept was developed, and Germany already had a high population density, the concept of „Lebensraum“ gained importance. Even the idea that a smaller nation which had no opportunity to gain autarky and strength on their own was to disappear and give way to its greater neighbour seems to have risen from the earliest concepts, and was only popularized by Hitler and the National Socialists as a kind of social darwinism of nations. The concept has nothing to do with genocides or exterminating peoples in favor of another one, but as there was a theory in which countries like Belgium, Luxembourg or Poland had no perspective of existing very much longer, it seems no longer a big thing to wipe them off the map deliberately and subdue their peoples to German dominion.

The Geopolitik also had little respect for existing borders because of the natural condition of Germany having no natural boundaries and therefore having been subject to foreign intrusions for centuries (e.g. the Thirty Years’ War). The only boarder of interest was the „Volksgrenze“, which was allowed to expand, also giving way to military means, if the German people expanded continually.

II. German and Western concept of economic science

In a similar way as Geopolitik, the German view on economics was integrated and holistic. It had always been a consensus, even beyond the German boarder, that totally uncontrolled markets pose a severe threat to freedom and security of peoples and even might end up in mass starvation and genocide. In an economy uncontrolled by means of „the state“ there would be players active aiming to ever greater control of the market and to ever greater profits, and the more profit a player would be able to make, the mightier and less scrupulous he would become, and as he cares not for the people’s welfare but solely his profit, the result would be a big monopoly with prices for things of basic need the average consumer is unable to pay.

German economic scientists, and even from other European countries such as France, Italy or England, were aware that, in order to reach the goal of national prosperity, there had to be established a state-controlled economy for things of basic needs, such as water, electricity, food, communication and transport.

If you are talking to economic liberalists today and come up with this fact, they will usually denounce such kinds of thoughts to be „marxist“, „socialist“ or other harsh words. They have inhalated the concept of total freedom of every economic movement, especially that of peoples and money. While they do so in oder to silence opposition even before it can develop its thoughts completely, they couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, the concept of total market liberty is in itself much more Marxist than the traditional continental approach to economy.

Liberalism, as it dominates scientific and political debates today, comes from a completely different school of thought which has no roots in the traditional theory of national economics. Those who formulated the essential works on liberal economy had their personal experience not in the field of working or organizing work and supply for the people in a certain area but rather dealt in transregional trade or in stock markets. Therefore it is not a surprise that their own economic interest comes to dominate their theoretical building. These people made their interest in no boundaries for trade into a central economic „law“, although it is no natural law as the Law of gravity but a demand to legislation.

Today the „theory“ of free markets, which is in fact a wonderfully unproblematic way for globally operating trade concerns to gain huge amounts of profit, even dares to force the „four fundamental flows“ upon every single nation. These flows are: Money (Investitions in and Profits out), Goods (Natural resources MUST be allowed out everywhere, Products in everywhere), Information (concerning production factors) and Workforce. The last thing of these is the most dangerous of all, as a free flow of workers across the globe will root up entire peoples and force them into a soulless system of exploitation and maximization of profits. To secure these four flows, the U.S. military strategy considers to establish a fifth flow: that of „U.S. Strategical Services“, which actually means: War on every nation resisting the implementation of the flows.

Where Marx criticizes „Capitalism“, it is always this form of capitalism he describes. From the perspective of early 19. century Germany, this is untrue as there were actual means of limiting and moderating markets by imposing legislation in favor of national welfare. Marx’ main argument is: In an economy as he describes it, revolution is a necessity. But as Marx considers revolution a necessity anyway, why not let things turn out really bad for the masses first. Therefore the most unscrupulous capitalists, the international bankers and the Marxists always got along so very good for the last 150 years. Marxists, in fact, even are the bankers’ stormtroopers which do their dirty but necessary work.

The Marxist system of rule will come either way, be it via a Marxist revolution or as a creeping menace, as it is today. Neither Western liberalism nor classical Marxism will lead European and American societies out of that pincer movement. Maybe a consideration of the long-established but long-forgotten continental theories of holistic economics may provide a way out.

III. War Propaganda

Following the establishment of great nation states, great standing armies were put up, and in order to provide to these armies a sense of what they were for, states had to conduct propaganda on a greater scale. The Western powers, especially Britain, had got this point very early. Britain was the driving force in encirculating the German Reich, as it, from the No. 1 position, was afraid of any concurrent possibly rising on the Continent. In order to prepare a war against Germany propagandistically, the „Tavistock Institute on Human Relations“ was founded. Ever heard of it? And it is still in existence, for 100 years now. This institute instrumentalized defamation, infamy and lies for the cause of demonizing Germany as a people.

In order to get war bonds sold to simple British citizens for financing Britain’s war measures, the Institute set up in their propaganda posters the idea of Germany aiming at conquering the whole world and enslaving Britons. They spread the lies of German soldiers cutting off babies’ hands, raping Belgian nuns and processing fallen British soldiers into swine food – even in WWI!

There is this person named Edward Bernays. He was an American Jew, a nephew to Sigmund Freud. As the Jewish network wanted America to join forces with Britain against Germany, Bernays went to Britain and worked in the Tavistock Institute with the goal of propagandizing unto the American People until they believed war against Germany, which the U.S. didn’t border to and which never posed a direct threat to it, was a necessity. Can you think of a greater act of treason than getting your homeland into a war in favor of a foreign power, without the slightest interest for itself? After the war had ended, Bernays instrumentalized some of the propagandistic techniques for advertising and for public campaigns, which became known as Public Relations.

Germany had nothing to set against this perfidy. It tried to present the facts and figures about national education, expenditure for the armed forces and the amount of war ships built to invalidate the accusations of being „barbaric“, „war-seeking“ or „militarist“. Unfortunately, the truth about these topics is only presentable as numbers, and propaganda posters presenting numbers are not very supposed to catch peoples’ eyes and bring in money from war bonds. Only as of 1917, the Germans made their first picture-only propaganda poster, showing a soldier with the words „Helft uns siegen“ (Help us win). It raised ten times the result of the previous posters. Tragically, before Germany lost WWI militarically, it lost the war propagandistically.

And this tragedy even repeated in WWII, as Germany had drawn consequences from the propaganda disaster in WWI. Goebbels’ Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, which has subsequently been demonized as telling infamous lies, had actually just found a way of putting things into catchy headlines while the Allies’ propagandistic branches spread even more diabolic lies over the world. Unfortunately, the power which lied much less lost again and was then blamed for all sins every fighting power had committed. Just look up the name of Ilja Ehrenburg if you want to know of what kind the Allies’ war propaganda was.

IV. The situation in Germany today

Any German who still thinks the German education system will provide him with an adequate mindset is hopelessly enslaved by the Matrix. Germany today is not a free country, but the elites never stop praising their system as „the most democratic, the most free state ever in existence on German soil“. In fact, you are free to consume drugs, you are free to kill your children as long as they are yet unborn, you are free marching naked through the streets on one of those notorious CSDs – but you are NOT free to call this kind of „freedom“ decadent and menacing to our future. You are also not free to claim that the procreation of imported Islamic minorities will not only put these symptoms of decadence to an end but also will bury the small rest of our civil rights when they start struggling for the installation of Sharia Courts.

This struggle is IMO about to come, but I don’t consider it to be possibly successful. Islamists have been brought in in masses to destroy the traditional character of the country, to riot in the streets and to stoke fears among the populace, but the main purpose is to make the peoples more likely to accept a totalitarian control system, a Police state which is designed mainly by the EU. The Federal Republic is even eager to deconstruct its own statehood, its own possibility to handle the coming conflicts because the FRG-Pseudo-Elites are so eager for careers in Bruxelles and are, of course, highly confident in the European Utopia. What the average German says about this bureaucratic juggernaut doesn’t matter at all, as with modern media manipulation tools in „modern-day Democracy“, the „Souvereign“ (i.e. the average) can be forced into arbitrary states of mind.

In 2007, I took part in a demonstration in Bruxelles on September 11th in order to commemorate the victims of the New York atrocity. At that time I was still very much „critical to Islam“ and believed the lie set up by people like Ralph Giordano („Not migration is the problem, but Islam is“ – in fact it’s just the other way round). But nevertheless the event was forbidden by the Communist Bruxelles mayor (in Belgium, unlike in Germany, mayors even have the power to forbid demonstrations). Heavy armed police forces were out on the streets, with armored cars on every corner. I saw a man arrested for nothing but standing with a Crucifix and recitating verses from the Bible. I saw people getting handcuffed for flying national flags. Later I heard that there were even MdEPs (Members of European Parliament) and members of the national parliament of Belgium, of the group Vlaams Belang, heavily beaten up and taken into arrest. The Bruxelles mayor had deliberately ordered French-speaking police forces from the Walloonia to „pacify“ the situation, exploiting the inner-Belgian national conflict for his purposes. In Bruxelles, the Muslim part of the population was then already 57%, and the Communist Party led a coalition with several Islamic fractions in the town hall.

In 2008, there was a rally organized in Cologne called „Antiislamisierungskongreß“. A few hundred demonstrators were present, but the official city government organized a counter-demonstration which consisted of more than 20,000 leftists and „Gutmenschen“. The mayor of Cologne, whose son was even killed by a Turkish car driver in 2001, called the conservative demonstrators „braune Soße, die ins Klo gehört“ (brown sauce belonging into a toilet). The Police „failed“ in protecting the demonstrators, of which some were heavily beaten up. A river boat they had rented for the day was thrown at with stones so it almost sank. Finally the whole event had to be blown off. Leftist and militant „Antifa“ forces, indoctrinated school classes, Marxist priests with their also indoctrinated parishes join forces with the official administration – and in the future also with the police – against those who simply rally for Germany to keep its German character. This mess is called „Aufstand der Anständigen“ (Rise of the Righteous).
To provide oneself with a more adequate picture of his country’s very own history, one has to really be both courageous and creative. There is a newspaper which is in fact just a little bit more right-winged than the Allied-licensed press cartel (Junge Freiheit). It comes out weekly on Fridays. Sometimes when I wanted a copy, all the copies from my local kiosque were sold out by Friday 12:00 and no copies were left. This wasn’t because of a high demand for the paper but because the copies were not delivered to the kiosque – some leftist working for the delivery company had got behind what was in the package and simply annihilated it. In another press shop I asked for that newspaper and almost was kicked out by the shopkeeper, who then got a highly red head and almost wasn’t able to speak properly how much she despised of „people reading such papers“, and she „didn’t want to have to do with such papers“.

And the Junge Freiheit is long not capable of providing you the entire picture. Articles on general history dealing with the national socialist epoque are quite sparse. I most profited from reading the „Deutsche Geschichte“, a revisionist magazine which appears six times a year. The Editor reported of one case in which shopkeepers were threatened to get their shops burnt down by Leftists for just having the Deutsche Geschichte in its shop! The Editor also organizes meetings with Revisionist experts. Those meetings regularly have to be cancelled, as there are Leftists who „inform“ the hotel owners on what kind of historical views their guests have, and then the hotel clerks refuse to grant access for the referents.

This is also the way Leftists deal with unwelcome political forces such as „Die Freiheit“ (which internally is, in fact, more liberal than the CDU) or „Pro Deutschland“. These groups are simply unable to find a location to conduct their party meetings at because the location owners always get „informed“ and then act as expected. Nobody can publicly allow himself to be courageous, as reputation can – and will – be immediately destroyed. Would you want to resist a force which is willing to rip you off everything you own and even threatens to harm your home and family?

The head of the right-wing NPD, Udo Voigt, also once got kicked out of a hotel where he was spending his vacation. The hotel owner’s „explanation“ was that the other hotel guests’ right for an undisturbed stay at the hotel would outweigh the right of Mr. Voigt to stay in the hotel. Furthermore, as a private businessman he was able to decide who he wanted to have business with and with whom not. Mr. Voigt went to a court, which ruled that the hotel owner was right in doing so.
Such was the state of the German Nation in the past decade, and the actual decade is far from doing any better.

Why? Reflections on the Oslo Massacre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.