Archive
Categories

Artikel-Schlagworte: „ideology“

Martin Lichtmesz on Germany’s Colonization

Martin Lichtmesz, one of Germany’s best political essayists (whose essays I haven’t translated until now, as his German is so brilliant that you would have to be Shakespeare to translate it in adequate English), has published a new book: „Die Verteidigung des Eigenen“, dealing with the ideology behind Germany’s self-destruction.

I want to give at least a short quotation from it: Having dealt with Frantz Fanon’s criticism of colonization and colonialism, in which the author’s the reference to  his own nègrerie („negroness“), i.e. his awareness of racial identity and its importance for freedom and self-determination plays a major role, Martin draws a parallel to the German situation, to the arrogant attitude of the West and the self-denying masochism of many Germans:

Of course, the German was, since 1945, something like the Negro of Europe, who had to be weaned from his barbarism, to incorporate him into the community of civilized nations, a task which the carriers of the „burden of liberalism“ had borne heroically, as was (and is) their job. We thank them today in Washington and Moscow for the fact that they have slain the dragon, who we once were ourselves. But the forcibly (by Versailles and Dresden) democratized Germans cannot be trusted, for you never know whether, under the cosmopolitan mask, there is still the old black jungle negroe, now simply called a Nazi, who – like once the just seemingly romanized Arminius – is just waiting for the opportunity to pull out his ax again. This provides the practical pretext to keep the nose ring always at hand. The historical consciousness of the Germans is deliberately grouped around their Negro past. The intention is not so much to make them cease to be Negroes and never return to their negroness, but rather to remind them that, due to their latent negroness, they need permanent educational supervision.

Cognitive Dissonance and Political Correctness

by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hostility Toward Germans Part III: White Guilt and Islamic Chauvinism

Hostility Toward Germans Part III:

White Guilt and Islamic Chauvinism

Written by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage

Translated by J M Damon

A translation of a German blog posted at

[Following is Part III of my lecture “Hostility Towards the Germans – Taking Stock” which was presented to the Institut für Staatspolitik (Institute for State Policy) as part of the 18th Berlin Colloquium on 16 July 2011.]

Expansion of the Paradign of anti German Hostility

to the Entire West

As we have seen, hostility toward Germany and Germans exists on three levels.

On the lowest (first) level, it is the kind of hostility or antagonism that is directed toward a specific Volk or people (in our case the Germans.)

On this level we are dealing with simple resentments dating to former antagonisms (such as those with the Poles, English and Jews.)

On a higher (second) level, anti German hostility is the expression of a kind of globalistic ideology.

Germany was historically assumed to be the prinipal antagonist (the “quintessential evil”), and Germany could again be seen this way.

These antagonisms have led to hostility on an even more abstract (third) level.

The antagonism against the German people is part of an ideological syndrome that is directed against the existence of national groups per se, particularly against whites.

At present, anti German ideology has been universalized to a White Guilt Paradigm. According to the White Guilt Paradigm, white peoples are burdened with guilt because of their evil nature. The paradigm includes the expansion of anti German ideology to all the countries of the West, and their “guilt” takes diverse forms including colonialism, the extermination of American Indians (along with other indigenous peoples) and even African slavery.

White people are blamed for African slavery despite the fact that it was a brief interlude in Western culture and is furthermore an institution blessed by Allah, in keeping with Islamic law. It is still unofficially practiced in many Islamic countries and would still be practiced in Africa if the West had not abolished it. According to the White Guilt Paradigm, the Western nations must pay for their guilt by surrendering their lands to invasion by nonwhite peoples from all over the world. This “politically correct” paradigm has elevated self-destruction to an official virtue and moral imperative in nearly all Western countries.

This self-mandated genocide in the West involves more than merely permitting mass in-migration, since Globalism aims to abolish more than just national groups. In keeping with its Enlightenment genesis, and in the name of the Utopia of Self-Created Man, it takes aim at all pre-existing ties.

Included among these ties are the family and all gender-specific differentiations. In this assault on Western institutions, Globalism utilizes catchwords such as “gender mainstreaming” and “patchwork families,” and it advocates homosexuality, hedonistic sexual morals, abortion; etc.

In general, Globalism opposes the idea that man can be more than an atomized individual, and it rejects the possibility that man can be part of a transcendent entirety, an integral part of a natural progression of generations. Apparently we cannot entirely banish the idea of responsibility for those born after us – apparently it is born in us.

However, globalistic utopianism has succeeded in dislodging it from its embedment in an actual chain of generations and transferred it to a totally abstract level. This was all the easier because responsibility for an abstract “Mankind” or “Creation” is ideally suited to relieve the individual of real responsibility for his own life as well as the lives of his children.

The individual thus “liberated” pays for his “liberation” with political support for more or less totalitarian projects for the rapture of all mankind.

Needless to say, Globalism seeks to divest religion (especially Christianity) of its authenticity, as official Christians with state go about proclaiming that “all religions strive for the same goal”. This idea is highly suspect to the followers of “all religions” except Christianity, but it irritates Westerners no more than the traditional and obvious objection: if all religions strive for the same thing, why are there so many different religions? The Christian religion’s claim to truth, whose central articles of faith include the belief that Man alone cannot redeem himself, disrupts realization of the Enlightenment Utopia. For this reason, very little traditional religious folklore has to survive.

It is necessary for the Globalists to anchor this ideological syndrome in more than just our heads, however. If that were all that is required, it could easily be displaced by argumentation. The syndrome is also anchored structurally in an elite international network whose followers are obligated to support this ideological paradigm. In addition, it is included in countless varied state and nongovernmental institutions. The force that is undermining the will and capacity for self-assertion among European peoples is not just ideology itself, but rather a complex structure that builds on this ideology and is dedicated to the destruction of our peoples.

Islamic Chauvinism

The structures of family, Volk and religion have traditionally provided solidarity in the Western societies, but they are now being ideologically dismantled. Western societies are now atomized while confronted with massive immigration by Muslims, whose society is not infected with self-destructive ideologies.

It is well understood that Islam is not simply a religion but rather a social ideology and social order as well. It is a social order that is programmed to be self-stabilizing. Islam stresses everything that holds human society together. The fragile and complex balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, freedoms and restrictions, rights and duties that has always characterized Christian societies is foreign to Islam. Today this balance has been disrupted in the West by centrifugal and emancipating forces that have gained the upper hand.

The distinction between “Us” vs.“Them”, between believers and nonbelievers, is central to the religion of Islam. This distinction is not a co-incidental admixture from the Middle Ages that can arbitrarily be deleted from their religion. Rather, it is inherent in their images of God and man.

If Man is not made in the image of God, as Christians and Jews postulate, but is instead pure invention and property, in fact a slave of his Creator, then total submission to Allah (“Islam”) is the only proper relationship.

Thus Muslims are a priori better people than non-Muslims, since non-Muslims resist Allah, who is affronted by their very existence.

In support of such intolerance the Koran does not spare tirades of hatred against “nonbelievers” whose inferiority and depravity comprise a basic assumption of Islam. Thus the Law of Enmity must remain in effect between Muslims and non-Muslims until the worldwide triumph of Islam.

Under such assumptions, an ethos of self-criticism cannot develop.

The Koran opposes the biblical admonition “Judge not, lest you be also judged” with “We are the best society that ever existed among men, we strive for the good and forbid the evil, and we believe in Allah.” One’s shirt of course can fit more snugly than one’s coat, and so a Turk for example can still favor the welfare of his own people over that of the Arabs (not to mention the Kurds.)

The fundamental assertion that Mankind is to be seen through the glasses of a We-You Relationship also presents the worldview of less religious Muslims. In countries such as Turkey it inspires ethnic chauvinism as well.

The fact that Muslim peoples can be enemies of one another does not interfere with their forming a We Group in opposition to nonbelievers.

Muslim solidarity against nonbelievers is in fact the central social norm of Islam.

From this arises the impossibility for Muslims of forming an attachment to a non-Muslim nation, unless it is restricted to formal legalities such as obtaining citizenship. This further illustrates the impossibility of Muslims forming attachments to non-Muslim groups. In their view, placing a higher value on solidarity with a non Muslim nation than solidarity among Muslims would be so immoral that it would be an outright impossibility.

Whether a society is “Muslim” or not depends on the political leadership.

For example, if Muslims occupied positions of leadership, they could regard Germany as a Muslim country. The German Volk, to whom they could then be loyal, would, in their view, consist of Muslims like themselves. The remainder of the formerly German Volk would then be mere Dhimmis, an ethnic and religious minority that they would tolerate and no longer consider “German.”

These traits endow Islam with an enormous collective ability to successfully put its programs through, especially against the degenerate West. It goes without saying that a society whose entire world image is built on We–You differentiation is certain to have the advantage in confrontations with a society that is unaware of such a distinction, and would even consider it immoral.

Islam’s contempt for nonbelievers, which is an integral part of their worldview, turns to hate when the nonbelievers are predominant.

Such hatred at present is not directed specifically at Germans in particular – in general, Germans are more popular in the Islamic world than other Western peoples. Instead, it is directed against whatever society happens to be in the majority, which in Germany happens to be the “Scheiß-Deutschen” (Shitty Germans).

At any rate a Muslim takeover is possible only because of the efforts of a cartel of elite international functionaries who have adopted and internalized a globalistic utopia. In the final analysis, this cartel constitutes the revolutionary party of the European Civil War that not only allows this process to occur, but is actively promoting it. In doing this, it is harnessing to its cart the special interests of the political Left along with minorities of every description. The minorities are serving it very well.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why we won’t bow and weep after Oslo …

… an Introduction to European Rightists

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

 

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

Note in advance: None of the currents mentioned here offer an intellectual foundation for violent acts, even though that is being constantly asserted. No counterjihadist, nationalist or conservative, or even racist or neonazi should let themselves be heaped together with Breivik.
Such a thing clearly is not done with attacks from Islamic terrorists. One comes to the point there of considering how small a percentage of Muslims are actually radical and how few of them actually advocate violence with the result that the attacks „have nothing to do with Islam.“ Of course, „Islam is peace.“
When looking at the intellectual bases of Islam, especially the Quran, the conclusion is made that, in fact there is a call for violence against infidels, and indeed unambiguously and not just sporadically.
Michael Mannheimer created a excellent graphic to illustrate this fact.
http://fakten-fiktionen.de/2011/07/24/politisch-inkorrekte-gedanken-zum-norwegen-massaker/
Even if the act was not a „false-flag“ action – as one can guess alone on the basis of the improbability that the media knew everything about Breivik and the thinkers who influenced him –  even if the criminal had no psychiatric disorder but was a „normal“ right-winger, it still in no way proves that right wing individuals are brutal perpetrators of violence. If it proves anything, it proves only that the unbearable results of multiculturalism, coupled with the interdiction of naming them, can drive people to insanity.
We have already been accused of „mockery of the victims,“ as I have forecast, because we dared to question the version that the media present to us.
It is only a mockery of the victims, if – as in the case with 9/11 – the light is kept with all means possible from shining through the fog.
It has been told us clearly to our face: It is expected that we are ashamed to death because of Brevik’s crime, put on the cloak of repentance and wail like the witch’s apprentice over the spirits to whom we have allegedly sold our souls.
We will not do that! We will document the incidents in Oslo and analyze, but we will not allow the Left one occasion to tear us apart.
The extra step of distancing oneself from the monstrous act is not necessary, condemning it already is a given. But it seems very „practical“ that an alleged White Nationalist chose precisely that act that evokes the highest measure of condemnation among Whites, and that he appears to twist all of their nationalistic slogans talking about the esteem of children and hostility against people that harm children into punishable lies The one accustomed to defaming anyone right of the SPD (Socialist Party of Germany) as a Nazi would probably be shocked at the diversity of European rightists. They can be coarsely categorized into four areas. I am intentionally oversubscribe the characteristics of each scene here for the purpose of clarification; of course the borders around these areas are somewhat fluid.
1 Counterjihadism
2. Conservatives
3. Nationalists
4. Neonazis
Scene 1:
Many turn to the critique of Islam because they have experienced first hand what „enrichment“ (the former ministeress for integration of foreigners in Germany, Böhmer) really means. They have come in contact with „juvenile perpetrators of intense crimes,“ and have to watch as these individuals are either marginally punished or not punished at all for their crime; they live in a neighborhood that is teeming with Muslim foreigners and perceive the changes. Also, Islamic terrorism has made many people into counterjihadism, especially since the attacks of 9/11/2001.
Dealing with the Quran and the Hadiths, with Muhammad’s life and the Islamic Sharia law, in fact, a world opens up to us that has not only a foreign but also monstrous and misanthropic effect upon us.
Manfred Kleine-Hartlage presented in his book „The Jihad System“ a sound analysis of the intellectual bases for Islam.
Counterjihadists like to compare Islam with fascism. They treat Islam as a totalitarian ideology that destroys the lives of people. Geert Wilders said: „I don’t battle against Muslims, but against Islam.“
The objective behind the critique of Islam is that the Muslims come to understand that they are following a hate ideology and need to secularize. This, however, works only in exceptional cases because critique of Islam is based on false premises (it points Islam out as an ideology, as something that the Muslims could simply abandon).
There is not just right-wing, but also left-wing and liberal counterjihadism. Most critics of Islam are not right-wing in the classical sense and even place great value in this. Many advocate the position of the equality of left-wing and right-wing extremism.
Counterjihadism is openly pro-Israeli. Israel is looked upon as an ally of the West and against Islam. The United States and the „war against terror“ are also seen in a positive light.
Parts of Counterjihadism rise to the level of accusing the Muslims of things that aren’t even right. Their blindness as to problems with non-Muslim immigration serve as backdrop to this.
Most Counterjihadists don’t place the narrative of open European society and multiculturalism in question, but look upon Islam in its isolationism, its narcissism and its lack of willingness to compromise as an obstacle to the realization of the dream of an intercultural world.
Also, the Counterjihad has nothing against homosexuals, in contrast, they are cited as chief witnesses for the brutality of Islam (in Islamic countries, homosexuality is a crime).
Scene 2:
The conservatives don’t see „the West“ as endangered by Islam, but rather their country and people. They are mostly Christians and stand in theological opposition to Islam. Conservatives are outside the bounds of the „metaideology“ (Kleine-Hartlage) of liberalism and marxism. The two apparently contradictory trends are actually united in the assumption that the „liberation“ of mature structures and traditions is something good per se.
Conservativism then asks why things that have worked for centuries should be sacrificed in favor of societal experiments, it is explicitly anti-utopian.
Conservatives favor the classical family over homosexual relationships because the preservation of the nation is important to them. And homosexuals make no contribuation in the production of a new generation.
The conservative camp is divided about the question of Israel. Most neoconservatives are pro-Israeli, many traditional conservatives see Christianity as a child of Judaism. But in contrast to the counterjihad scene, in the conservative scene there are also critical voices against the Jews and Israeli policy.
Conservatives speak out for the rehomogenization of the European nations because they know that democracy can only function with a ‘demos’ (nation), a multiethnic population, however, will always get caught up in tribal conflicts and therefore will virtually shout for a totalitarian regime.
Some conservatives even cast a favorable glance toward monarchy.
Scene 3:
The nationalists define themselves no more with ideas and positions, but rather with belonging. The nations (and also the superordinate White Race) are presumed as natural founders of identity. That does not mean that they hate other nations. They only maintain that every nation will be happy within the borders of its own country and the insane experiment of multiculturalism comes to an end. The Americans stress the racial components here, the Europeans the national components, which makes sense in light of the different situations.
Nationalists aren’t hateful monsters, they are people who are consumed with love for their people and their homeland and want to defend them. Any Indian tribe in Australia’s outback is guaranteed the right to ethnic singularity. Only, the European nations are not, they are supposed to mix with others.
Why is that? How can the mechanism of „White Guilt“ be effective? Only through the implicit recognizance of racist divergence. If there is no such thing as races and nations, then we also don’t need to be ashamed of colonization and oppression (by the way, one can look up how slavery, which we abolished long ago, is still practiced by blacks and Muslims today. They, however, don’t feel any guilt). If there are races and nations, then it is our proper right to set ourselves in defense against the annihilation of our race and our peoples. The same applies for the special German cult of national guilt.
These contraditions can lead to cognitive dissonance. Anyone with eyes in his head can see what a monstrous experiment multiculturalism is. But to express this is taboo, as though the expression of this fact is the actual crime itself.
Nationalists are also involved in the area of historical revisionism, which counterjihadists reject and conservatives handle only with kid gloves. There are significant indications that we are being lied to systematically with reference to the course and foundations of the Second World War.
Most nationalists exceed an anti-Israeli point of view. In contrast to left-wing antizionism that is oriented against Israeli apartheid policy, the nationalist turns anti-judaism against jewish internationalism.
Ultimately, countless hints and statements have led many nationalists to look upon the „conspiracy theory“ of the NWO („New World Order“) as true.
The apparent goal of the New World Order is to replace the various nations with an easily controllable ethnical mix and ultimately to set up a totalitarian global state. There are countless documents to support this, many quotes from well-known people can also be interpreted in this fashion.
Scene 4:
The neonazis are not only the ones who actually worship Hitler, but also those who can’t imagine that the NS regime acted on purely irrational grounds. Any suggestion of rational motives is seen as revisionism and branded as trivialization and patently rejected. National Socialism ideologically fulfills the function of the scapegoat, the absolute evil.
Not only Hitler worshippers and Holocaust skeptics not scratch the surface of this historical narrative but even the one who suggests that Hitler and his followers had human motives rather than demonizing them, and the one who expresses vague misgiving that the division of a group into genetically evil, bestial war criminals (German) and heroic resistance warriors (opponents of Germany) is historically correct.
There are, of course, the true worshippers of Hitler who are openly antidemocratic. This could be interpreted (loyal to the system) as „irreformably evil“ or one can interpret this position as an answer to the many existential problems into which the democracy of the Federal Republic of Germany has fallen.

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

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.

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.