Archive
Categories

Artikel-Schlagworte: „Islamization“

Germany Attempts to Silence Criticism of Islam

by Soeren Kern

[Though this article is not drawn from the German blogosphere, it provides correct information on the situation of the counterjihad movement in Germany. Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the mainstream conservative Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos, Madrid.] 

German authorities have officially confirmed that they are monitoring German-language Internet websites that are critical of Muslim immigration and the Islamization of Europe.

According to Manfred Murck, director of the Hamburg branch of the German domestic intelligence agency, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV), his organization is studying whether German citizens who criticize Muslims and Islam on the Internet are fomenting hate and are thus criminally guilty of „breaching“ the German constitution.

The BfV’s move marks a significant setback for the exercise of free speech in Germany and comes amid a months-long smear campaign led by a triple alliance of leftwing German multicultural elites, sundry Muslim groups and members of the mainstream media, who have been relentless in their efforts to discredit the so-called counter-jihad movement (also known as the „Islamophobes“) in Germany.

Opinion polls show that growing numbers of ordinary German citizens are worried about the consequences of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged mass immigration from Muslim countries.

Germans are especially concerned about the refusal of millions of Muslim immigrants to integrate into German society, as well as the emergence of a parallel legal system in Germany based on Islamic Sharia law.

In an effort to reverse this tide of public opinion, the guardians of German multiculturalism have been working overtime to regain the initiative by accusing the critics of Islam of engaging in hate speech to try to intimidate the so-called „new right“ into silence. […]

[Read full article on stonegateinstitute.org]

Från en tysk peka av beskådar: ett svar till Lawrence Auster

[Machine translation. No liability for translation errors.Maskinöversättning. Inget ansvar för översättningsfel.]
Comments in English, please. View original article

[Denna artikel, med en inledning av Baron Bodissey, publicerades också in utfärda utegångsförbud för av Wien],

På maj 6, postade Lawrence Auster en kommentar på reaktion för Tyskland` s på död för Bin Laden ` s – en kommentar som markerar plötsligt politiska spänningar mest av oss, är normalt inte medveten av. Jag funderare det är meningsfull att undersöka argument för Herr Auster ` s för att göra fri naturen av dessa spänningar, och vad de kunde betyda till Counterjihaden.

Startpunkt för Auster ` s är att kanslern Angela Merkel criminally har criminally laddats för att uttrycka fröjd över frånfälle för Bin Laden ` s. Han citerar därefter en röstning enligt vilken „64 procent av Germans inte ser döden av Osama Bin Laden som något att firas ”. Till Auster indikerar detta den andliga döden för „”som kommas med på Tyskland„av den jämna applikationen av liberalism ”.

Det finns något pekar Auster doesn` t verkar för att förstå: Först allra, var ifrågasätta inte huruvida Bin Laden, död för ` som s var bra eller dåligan, men huruvida en bör fira den. I Tyskland har många terrorister dödats av säkerhetsstyrkor under nya årtionden och något hängivet självmord i arrest. I inget fall gjorde en tysk regerings- uttrycklig tillfredsställelse eller fröjd om den, och i inget fall fanns det offentliga berömmar av sorten som vi bevittnar nu i Amerika. Någon är död för ` s, och det som av ett ennemy, firade ansett undecent i Tyskland, och därför, var meddelandet för Fru Merkel ` s åtminstone pinsam fadäs, utan hänsyn till huruvida det olagligt eller inte. Det ` s något som enkelt inte göras i detta land.

Jag klander Herr Auster för universitetslärare` t för att inte veta och inte överenskommelse egenarna av ett utländskt land, funderare för I precis honom bör vara motvillig att bedöma vad han doesn` t förstår.

Upp till nu, har denna varit precis en minderårigmotsättning mellan mest Germans å ena sidan och mest amerikaner på annan. Givet irrelevancen av vad vi talar omkring, är den alla avskräcka den Auster griper detta tillfälle att starta en lavin av hat och fördom mot Tysklandet, början med

Och för resten, varför håller vi 50.000 U.S.-soldater, på en kosta av miljarder om året, däri dött land? För vad ämna, annat än mata deras ekonomi, som händer att vara det störst i Europa?

Välla fram dem är inte här att skydda Tyskland från invasioner. Sannerligen invaderas vi, som någon europénation är, men U.S.et är det sist landet som skulle något liknande för att skydda oss från det – vi ska väljer detta pekar upp nedanfört. U.S.en har baser i Tyskland, därför att vi styrkor i Mellanösten levereras härifrån (och kidnappade personer är utdelade härifrån till arrester för hemligheten CIA runt om jordklotet).

Precis funderare, om deHitler plottarna i 1944 hade lyckats, i att döda honom, och om någon tysk ledare hade uttryckt hans glädje, denna tyska domare, om översatt tillbaka till 1944, skulle sökanden att bestraffa honom. Jag gissar Tyskland har inte ändrat så mycket efter alla, hmm? Ren liberalism, som germansna i deras humorless fanatiska grundlighet aspirerar till som motsatsen av Nazitotalitarianism, är another bildar av totalitarianism. Och på samma sätt, som jag har ofta anmärkt, förstör denkämpade för transnationella motsatsen av Nazinationalismen, som sökte att förstöra nationerna av Europa, också nationerna av Europa. En långt eller another, i deras Nazi bildar huruvida, eller i deras hyper-liberal person bilda, poserar bemannar germansna ett beslutsamt hot till nationerna och av det västra. Att paraphrase Churchills berömda anmärkning om germansna, behöver de att hållas på vår fot, eller annat ska de går för vår hals.

Och han tillfogar

Mig förmiddag som inte-är ytterlighet eller ”anti-Tysk” när I-något att säga det.

vilket visar sannerligen att honom humourlessnessen för tysken för aktien för doesn` t.

Germansna instämm med mig. De ser sig som ett hot till andra. Det är därför dem något att säga, att EG är nödvändig, uppehället dem, dehota germansna, i kontroll.

Många Germans talar så, därför att de berättades för att tala och sådan saker för funderare. De undervisades att betrakta tusen år av tysk historia precis som enhistoria av Hitler. De undervisades till hänseende deras historia som bara en historia av brott. De undervisades att de är en fara till andra. De undervisades att patriotism- och „nationalism ”är det samma tinget, och att sistnämnden är ondska för rota allra i världen. De undervisades att hata sig.

Den startade med beträffande-utbildningen från 1945 på, och denna beträffande-utbildning är stilla gå på. Att förgifta en hel nation med själv-hat som ut vändes för att vara ett funktionsdugligt begrepp och detta begrepp, när lyckat applicerat, generaliserades till den västra världen i sin helhet, och, som begreppet av „vitskulden ”underminerar nu vår civilisation. Detta är ingenting som du bör klandra germansna för. De var precis försökskaninarna.

Miljon-dollar-ifrågasätta är: Varför göras detta, och vem gör så?

Herr Auster kan inte förstå mycket om Tyskland, men han har ganska korrekt förstått att oss aktien för universitetslärare` t känslorna av triumfen på död för Bin Laden ` s – inte tack vare försoning, eller liberalism, eller dekis och inte endast tack vare ett specialt tyskt begrepp av decencen som över beskrivas. Den kan vara chockerande till något, men även gillar militant counterjihadists mig aktien för universitetslärare` t det.

Ja var Bin Laden vår fiende, men på lista av våra fiender skulle han inte numrera en, och jämnt för att inte numrera tio. Islam marscherar framåtriktat i Europa inte vid terrorism, utan vid invandring och etnisk ansträngning, med starkt stöd från de politiska eliterna för landskampen. Den gör ingen avkänning att påstå en skillnad mellan amerikan- och européeliter, därför att de som alla tillhörde ett transatlantic, knyter kontakt centrerat in, men inte begränsat till, Amerika. Inom detta knyta kontakt, strategier göras kompatibelt med varje annan, så att det inte finns något sådan ting som strängt en medborgarepolitik. Det finns motsättningar på minderårig ifrågasätter, men den allmänna riktningen är in mot att upprätta en global enhetlig civilisation. EG är delen av detta processaa och en analytiker som precis klandrar Tysklandet för det, som Auster gör,

Problemet är att Tysk-ledde EG som i tysken varar besvärad siktas på dämpning av den tyska nationen, måste dämpa alla andra europénationer som väl. Detta är därför, som precis tysk nationalism inte kunde vara tillåten att härska Europa, tysk anti-nationalism också inte kan vara tillåten att härska Europa. Tysklandet måste inte härska, perioden.

bevisar att hans hat av ett särskilt land är starkare än hans analytiska kapaciteter.

Varför är leda driver i „en kriger på skräcken ”samtidigt som manar Frankrike för att öppna hon själv till islamisk infiltration, och i hemlighet vårda denna infiltation, som oss för att veta vid Wikileaks (och finns det inget resonerar för att anta att den samma strategin inte appliceras till andra européländer)? Varför driver europén sammanfogar passionately detta kriger – Storbritannien – samtidigt och med den samma passionen som kopplar in i dess själv-Islamization? Varför är Anglo-Saxonen överheten, stunder på kriger med mer än ett islamiskt land som manar Europa för att förstora Europeiska unionen mer och mer, predictably med resultatet, som ska Turkiet och norr Afrika sammanfogar klubban som öppnar därmed Europa till en flod av Musliminvandrare?

Det tydliga svaret är att westernization av den islamiska världen och islamization av den västra världen är två sidor av samma myntar.

Upprättande av en global enhetlig civilisation kräver förstörelsen av traditionellt mönstrar av värderar och lojaliteter. Nationer religioner, traditioner möjliggör folk till uttrycklig solidaritet med varje annan; de är de naturliga fienderna av någon tyranny. Globalismhjälpmedlet som upplöser dessa ties, som rymmer samhälle tillsammans, bara danandemanar görar perfekt konsumenter, och medlemmar av arbetet tvingar, betvingar till ett globalt system av den supranational institutionansvariga till inget. Ett sådan system av global rörlighet av huvudstad och arbetet, dvs. marknadsför ett globalt ekonomi, ansar till anarki på det mikrojämnt som därmed kräver mer ytterligare bemyndigande av det supranational jämnt att upprätthålla en fred individen, påstår är ej längre kompetent till sylten.

Detta är vad det politiskt klassificerar allra västra länder, inklusive Förenta staterna, är funktionsdugligt för. Muslimsna med deras jihadambition och som lämnas med dess barnsliga mångkulturella utopia, ses precis som användbara hjälparestyrkor, som är resonera därför de ges deras huvud.

Detta är bak slogorna av fördelande „demokrati ”, och „frihet ”och bra makt för „”och så vidare; och detta är bak formulerar av kulturell anrikning för „”, „tolerans ”, „välkomnandekultur ”och så vidare. Det är sannoliken som ansvariga tror i vad dem något att säga. De tror antagligen egentligen att de fungerar för ett system av fred och frihet. Tyvärr kriger detta begärningar, att motståndarear är inte endast fiender, bara jäklar som seemingly är funktionsdugliga för, och tyranny. Utopianbegreppet av världen för „en ”antyder enmoral och medför de-humanizingen av fienden.

Den märkande motsättande lands„skälmen påstår ”hjälpmedel: att inte stå ut med med etablerade lagliga normal med hänsyn till dessa länder. Som mitt egna land har två gånger förklarats ett skurk- statligt i det sist århundradet, vet jag vad I-förmiddagen som omkring talar och ser, hur även en bara opinionsundersökning provocerar lätt ren anti-Tysk etniskt hat bland amerikaner (inställning för I-funderareAuster ` s är representativt), det isn-` t hårt för att föreställa vad reaktionen skulle är, om Tysklandet slogs allvarligt Islamization. Även konservativ person gillar Auster, mig antar, stativ för wouldn` t vid vår sida.

Att tortera så-kallade terrorister i Guantanamo och är någon annanstans inte ett undantag från de irrefutable kraven för härska tack vare av nationell säkerhet (för resten: om det var nödvändigt att undersöka chauffören för Bin Laden ` s, därför var det som inte var nödvändigt att undersöka själva Bin Laden?), och att kasta liket för Bin Laden ` s in i havet är följden av denna de-humanization. Samtidigt är det en varning till någon motståndare av den nya världen beställer, f.e för counterjihadists, att de har inget att riskera av behandling enligt civiliserade demokratiska normal, om deras opposition blir för stark.

Vad de gör i dag med Bin Laden, är vad de gjorde igår med tyska generals, och vad de ska gör i morgon med någon som slåss deras utopia. Den ` s därför I-universitetslärare` t firar död för Bin Laden ` s.

Diesen Beitrag weiterlesen »

독일 관점에서: 로오렌스 Auster에게 대답

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

[남작 에의한 Bodissey 소개와 더불어 이 논문은, 또한 비엔나의 문에서, 발간되었습니다]

5월 6일에서, 로오렌스 Auster는 빈 라덴 ` s 죽음에 독일 ` s 반응에 대하여 코멘트를 배치했습니다 – 갑자기 저희의 정치 긴장을 가장 강조하는 코멘트는 일반적으로를 알고 있지 않습니다. 나는 그리고 Counterjihad에 의미할 수 있던지 무엇을 이 긴장의 성격을 분명히 만들기 위하여 씨 ` s 논쟁을 시험하는 것이 Auster 보람있다는 것을 생각합니다.

Auster ` s 출발점은 장관이 빈 라덴 ` s 서거에 쾌재 표현을 범죄로 청구되었다 앙겔라 메르켈 입니다. 그는에 따라 그 때 어느 „이라고 독일인의 64% 오사마 빈 라덴의 죽음을 때문에 „경축되기 것을 무언가 보지 않기지 투표를 인용합니다. Auster에, 이것은 자유주의의 일관된 신청에 의해 독일 주어진 „영적인 죽음을 „나타냅니다.

약간 점이 있습니다 Auster doesn ` t가 이해하는 것을 보이는: 첫째로, 질문은 빈 라덴 ` s 죽음이 좋아거나 다는 것을, 그러나 사람이 그것을 경축해야 한다는 것을 이지 않았습니다. 독일에서는, 많은 테러리스트는 현 시대 도중 보안 부대에 의해 죽고, 몇몇은 감옥에 있는 자살했습니다. 어떠한 경우에도 그것에 관하여 독일 정부 급행 만족 또는 쾌재를 하고, 어떠한 경우에도 우리가 지금 미국에서 목격하고 있는 종류의 공중 축하가 있었습니다. 누군가를 ` s 죽음은, ennemy의 그것이라고 해도 경축해서, 독일에서 undecent 여겨지고, 불법 이었다는 것을 있건 없건 간에 그러므로, Merkel 여사 ` s 계산서는 적어도 곤란한 실수, 에 관계 없이이었습니다. 그것 ` s 이 국가에서 단순히 행해지지 않는 무언가.

나는 모르기를 위한 ` t 비난 씨를 걸치고 Auster 그가 그가 doesn ` t 이해하는 무슨을 재판하게 꺼려야 한다는 것을 외국의 관례를 이해하지 않아서, 다만 생각합니다.

지금까지, 이것은 대부분의 독일인 한편으로는과 계속 대부분의 미국인 사이 다만 작은 불일치 다른 쪽은입니다. 주어 우리가 에 대해서 이야기하고 있는 무슨을의 부적절을, 그것은 Auster가 독일에 대하여 혐오 그리고 편견의 눈사태를 방아쇠를 당기는 이 기회를 포착하다 입니다, 맨먼저 깜짝 놀라게 하

그리고 그런데, 우리는 왜 그 죽은 땅에서 년 10억의 비용에 50,000명의 미국 부대를, 지키고 있습니까? 유럽에서 가장 크 것을일어나는 그들의 경제를 먹이기 이외에 무슨 목적을 위해?

그래서, 그들은 여기 내습에서 독일을 보호하는. 실제로, 우리는 그러나 미국이 그것에게서 저희를 보호하고 싶으면 마지막 국가인 어떤 유럽 국가든지 이기 때문에, 침입됩니다, – 우리는 아래에 이 점을 입니다. 여기에서 중동에 있는 미군 공급되기 때문에 미국에는 독일에 있는 기초가 있습니다 (납치된 사람은 여기에서 은밀한 CIA 감옥에 전세계 배부되고).

이 독일 재판관이, 1944년으로 다시 번역하는 경우에, 그를 처벌하는 것을 노력하면 성공했으면, 그리고 어떤 독일 지도자가 그의 기쁨을 1944에 있는 반대로 Hitler 도형기가 그를 죽이기에 나타낸 경우에 경우에, 다만 생각하십시오. 나는 독일이 어쨌든 hmm 순전히 변화하지 않았다는 것을 짐작합니까? 그들의 유머가 없는 광신적인 완전에 있는 독일인이 나치 전체주의의 반대로에 갈망하는, 순수한 자유주의는 전체주의의 또 다른 모양입니다. 그리고 나가 수시로 주목한 대로 같은 방식으로, 유럽의 국가를 파괴하는 것을 노력한 나치 국가주의의 독일 투사로서 활동한 초국적 반대는 또한, 유럽의 국가를 파괴하고 있습니다. 그들의 나치 모양 또는 그들의 하이퍼 자유주의 모양에서, 독일인이 서쪽의 국가 그리고 사람들에게 결의가 굳은 위협을 야기한다는 것을, 이럭저럭. 독일인에 관하여 Churchill의 고명한 말을 의역하기 위하여는, 그들은 우리의 발에 지켜질 필요가 있습니다, 그렇지 않으면 우리의 인후를 위해 갈 것입니다.

그리고 그는 덧붙입니다

나는 나가 그것을 말할 때 극단 „반대로 독어“ 이지 않으며습니다.

참으로 그 doesn ` t 몫 독일인 humourlessness 보여주는지 어느 것이.

독일인은 저와 동의합니다. 그들은 다른 사람에 위협으로 봅니다. 그런 이유로 그들은 EU가 필요하다고 체크에서 그(것)들을, 이제까지 위협 독일인, 지키고, 말합니다.

많은 독일인은 그런 것을 말하고 생각하기 위하여 말되었기 때문에, 이렇게 말하고 있습니다. 그들은 Hitler의 선사시대 천 년의 독일 역사를 다만 고려하는 배웠습니다. 그들은 범죄의 역사로 그들의 역사를 단지 간주하는 배웠습니다. 그들은 다른 사람에게 위험이다는 것을 배웠습니다. 그들은 애국과 „국가주의가 „동일한 것이다는 것을, 그리고 나중이 세계에 있는 모든 악의 뿌리이다 배웠습니다. 그들은 미워하는 배웠습니다.

그것은 1945년에서 재 교육에서 위에 시작하고, 이 재 교육은 아직도 계속되고 있습니다. 작동 개념, 및 이 개념을이기 위하여 독살하기 위하여는, 꺼진 자기 혐오를 가진 전체 국가 일단 성공적으로 적용하는, „백색 죄의 개념이 „지금 우리의 문명을 훼손한 대로 전체로서 서쪽 세계에, 그리고 일반화되었습니다. 이것은 당신이 독일인을을 비난해야 하는 아무것도 아닙니다. 그들은 다만 기니피그이었습니다.

백만 달러 질문은: 이것은 행해지고, 누구 이렇게 합니다?

Auster 씨는 독일에 관하여 다량을 이해할지도 모르지만, 우리가 ` t 몫 완화, 또는 자유주의 때문에, 빈 라덴 ` s 죽음에 개선의 감각 – 또는 쇠미, 그리고 위에 기술된 decence의 특별한 독일 개념 뿐만 아니라 때문에 걸친다는 것을 그는 확실히 정확하게 이해했습니다. 그것은 저가 ` t 몫을 그것 걸치는 처럼 몇몇, 그러나 호전적인 counterjihadists 조차에 충격적일지도 모릅니다.

그렇습니다, 빈 라덴은 우리의 적이었습니다, 그러나 우리의 적의 명부에 그는 번호 하나, 그리고 동등한 번호 10가 아니었습니다. 이슬람교는 공포정치를 거쳐 아닙니다, 그러나 국제적인 정치적인 엘리트에게서 강한 지지와 더불어 이주 그리고 인종 투쟁을 거쳐 유럽에서 앞으로, 행진하고 있습니다. 그것은 그들이 모두 안으로 중심에 있기 대서양 횡단 네트워크에 속하기 때문에, 미국과 유럽 엘리트 사이 다름을 주장하는 그러나에 수감하지 않아, 미국 이해되지 않습니다. 이 네트워크 안에, 전략은 엄격히 국가 방침과 같은 것이 없다 그래야, 서로와 호환이 되는 합니다. 작은 질문에 불일치가 있습니다, 그러나 기본 방향은 세계적인 획일한 문명 설치로 입니다. EU는 Auster가 대로, 이 과정의, 그리고 그를 다만 독일을 비난해 분석가 일부분입니다,

문제는 독일 국가를 억압하는 독일 마음에서 겨냥되는 독일 지도한 EU가, 다른 유럽 국가를 전부 또한 억압해야 한다는 것을 입니다. 이런 이유로 다만 독일 국가주의가 유럽을 지배하기 것을 허용되기 수 없기 때문에, 독일 반대로 국가주의는 또한 유럽을 지배하는 것을 허용될 수 없습니다. 독일은, 기간 지배하면 안됩니다.

특정한 국가의 그의 증오심이 그의 분석적인 기능 보다는 더 강하다는 것을 증명을.

주요한 힘은 왜 이슬람교 침투에 여는 프랑스를 촉구하고 Wikileaks에 의하여 알기 위하여 은밀하게 이 infiltation를 양육하는 „테러와의 전쟁에 있는 „, 때문에 우리 동시에 입니까 (그리고 동일한 전략이 다른 유럽 국가에 적용되지 않다고) 추정하는 아무 이유도 없습니까? 유럽의 힘은 왜 -를 동시에 그리고 그것의 각자 Islamization에서 관여시키는 동일한 열정으로 – 가장 열렬하게 이 전쟁 – 대브리튼 결합하고 있습니까? 앵글로색슨 힘은 왜, 그러나 터어키와 북 아프리카가 클럽에 가입할 그로 인하여 회교도 이주자의 홍수에 유럽을 여는 결과를 가진 유럽 연합을 점점 확대하기 위하여 유럽을 촉구하는 매우 1개의 이슬람교 국가를 가진 전쟁에, 예상대로, 입니까?

명백한 응답은 이슬람교 세계의 서구화 및 서쪽 세계의 islamization가 동일한 동전의 쌍방이다 입니다.

세계적인 획일한 문명을 설치하는 것은 가치와 충절의 전통적인 본의 파괴를 요구합니다. 국가, 종교, 전통은 사람들을 서로 강화결속을 표현하는 가능하게 합니다; 그들은 어떤 폭정든지의 천적 입니다. 사회를 뭉쳐 놓는 이 동점을 녹이는 Globalism 방법, 남자에게 단순한 완벽한 소비자 및 일원을, 주제 아무도에게 책임있는 초국가적인 기관의 글로벌 시스템에 노동력의 하기. 자본과 노동 의 i.e 세계 시장 경제의 세계적인 기동성의 그런 체계는 개인적인 국가가 더 이상 보존할 수 있습니다 없는 평화를 실시할 것을 그로 인하여 초국가적인 수준의 더 허가가 요구하는 마이크로 수준에 무정부에, 갑니다.

이것은 모든 서방 국가의 정치 종류가, 미국을 포함하여, 작동하고 있는 무슨을 위해입니다. 그들의 성전 명예심에 이슬람교도, 및 왜 그들의 머리를 주어지는지 이유인 그것의 어린 다문화 utopia를 가진 좌측은 유용한 보조 힘으로 다만 보입니다.

이것은 퍼지는 „민주주의의 구호의 뒤에 „, 및 „자유 „, 및 „좋은 지배 „etc로 입니다; 그리고 이것은 „문화적인 풍부의 어구의 뒤에 „, „포용력 „, „환영받은 문화 „etc로 입니다. 밝히는 무슨과를 책임있는 것 믿다 가능합니다. 그들은 아마 진짜로 평화와 자유의 체계를 위해 일한다고 믿습니다. 불행히도, 이것은 상대가 뿐만 아니라 적이다는 것을, 그러나 악마 요구해, 전쟁과 폭정을 위해 겉으로는 일하. „하나 세계의 유토피아 개념은 „하이퍼 도덕을 함축하고 적의 인간성을 빼앗기 수반합니다.

레테르를 붙이는 반대 국가 „는 불량 국가 „의미합니다: 이 국가에 관하여 설치된 법률 표준으로 머무르지 않기 위하여. 나의 자신의 국가가 두번 지난 세기에 있는 불량 국가이라고 선언되기 때문에, 나는 알고 있 나가 에 대해서 이야기하고 있는, 무슨을 Auster가 ` s 태도 대표적이다는 것을), 그것 열심히 isn ` t 반응이 독일이 심각하게 Islamization를 싸운 경우에 일 것입니다 무슨을 상상할 것을 얼마나가 쉽게 단순한 여론 조사 조차 미국인 (나는 중 순수한 반대로 독일 인종 증오심을 생각하고 도발하는지 보기. 보수주의자 조차 Auster를, 나 가정합니다, wouldn ` t 기다립니다 우리 측을 좋아합니다.

소위 Guantanamo에 있는 테러리스트를 고문하는 것은 다른 곳에 국가 안보의 반박할 수 없는 필요조건 때문에 규칙에서 예외가 아니 (그런데: 빈 라덴 ` s 운전사를 시험하는 것이 경우에, 왜 그것이 빈 라덴 그 자신 인지?), 그리고 바다로 던지는 빈 라덴 ` s 시체를 시험하게 이 인간성 말살의 결과는 입니다. 동시에, 새로운 세계 질서의 어떤 상대든지, 그들의 반대가 너무 강한 경우에 되면 그들이 개명한 민주주의 기준에 따라 대우되는 가능성이 없는 counterjihadists를 위한 f.e에게 경고입니다.

빈 라덴과 오늘 하는 무엇을 독일 장군과 어제 하고 무슨, 그들의 utopia를 싸우는 누군가로 내일 할 무슨을입니다. 왜 나가 ` t를 걸치는지 그 ` s는 빈 라덴 ` s 죽음을 경축합니다.

Diesen Beitrag weiterlesen »

Liberal and Conservative Criticism of Islam

A text originally published in German on pi-news.net („Liberale und konservative Islamkritik“), highlighting the ideological gap between the two wings of the anti-Islamic movement in Europe, and arguing for a more conservative criticism of Islam.

I hope native English speakers will excuse the many mistakes in the translation. I could have avoided them by first writing down the translation, then reading out. But this is a video, and I intended to preserve its oral character.

The Jihad System or Is Islam Compatible with Western Civilization?

The following video is the English translation of the excerpt of a speech I made in november 2010 in Frankfurt, in which I developed some of the central ideas of my book „Das Dschihadsystem“.

As this is my first internet video, and I used only basic equipment, please don’t judge the video quality too critically. 😉

The German original video is available here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCtdId15tk&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL66D901554C592586

U.S. Strategy for Europe: Re-education

First published as Die US-Strategie: Umerziehung Europas“ in “Korrektheiten” on February 11th, 2011, by Manfred Kleine Hartlage

Translation and Introduction: Kairos

The Jews pose a determined threat to the nations and peoples of the West. I am not being extreme or anti-Semitic, when I say so.

While translating this article I followed the discussion about Manfred Kleine-Hartlage’s response to Lawrence Auster on the Korrektheiten, Gates of Vienna and Austers View from the Right.

It is interesting to see how views of the German people are revealed that would automatically be regarded as “racism” and “hate” if proposed the other way around. A commentator posted the Latin proverb “quod licet Iovi non licet bovi” (what Jupiter may do is forbidden to the ox).

When a German would call the American (or the Turkish –or even the Jewish) people – the whole people – a “threat to the nations and peoples of the West” it would be “intolerable” and so on – my provoking first sentence is just what Auster said about the Germans. I just changed “Germans” into “Jews” and “anti-German” into “anti-Semitic.”

Some commentators denied American influence in Europe and even in the Arabic world.

Thanks to Wikileaks we got an insight into American foreign policy, and Manfred analysed this paper. In this text one can find proof of the aims of the so called NWO (new world order) that is not a conspiracy theory. As Manfred wrote on Gates of Vienna:

I think speculating about a „conspiracy“ is fruitless. I guess there are conspiracies, but most of the job is done openly. The „networks“ I refer to are well known: CFR, Atlantic bridge, Bilderberg, American Council on Germany and so on, and a lot of related institutions which don’t conceal at all what they are aiming at: You’ve just to translate their ideological phrases into plain English to see what they want. The co-ordination within this network wouldn’t work if there wasn’t an ideological basic consensus.

I think many American or British readers will reject the idea that the globalistic acteurs behind the NWO are the worst enemies to all nations, because they do not like the idea that their elites are criminals. Well, I do not like the knowledge about how criminal the cabinet of Chancellor Merkel is, either, because it is very embarrasing. But I dislike even more if one makes a fool of me as our politicians do.

And no one – particularly not Manfred Kleine- Hartlage, the author of “Das Dschihadystem”  (The Jihad System) – says that Islam was any good to us. But think about what this “religion” would look like, if we never had opened our borders for mass-immigration of muslims. Why should we even care what they do in their desert? Why do we have to secure our air traffic in a nearly maniac way? Could there be islamic terror in American and European cities, if there were no muslims who could carry out such terroristic attacs?

So, when you read this analysis, keep in mind that it is not the American people that is criticized, but the American government and several NGOs. An agenda, an ideology that will destroy all Western culture, if we do not stop it – and would destroy it even if there was no Islam at all!

Kairos-

As the author, I subscribe what Kairos says. I am well aware that most Americans neither know nor agree with what is described below as their leaders‘ strategy for Europe, and that this strategy is by no means in their interest. So when I refer to „America“ in this text, this means the ruling elites.

– Manfred Kleine-Hartlage –


Wikileaks Reveals a US Strategy for France

There still seem to be people who consider Wikileaks an overestimated enterprise of whose publications too much fuss is made. Such people could not explain up to now why the American government persecutes Wikileaks and its founder with such fervent hatred. Now, at the latest, however, everybody should know better: The publication of a strategy paper of the US embassy in Paris, including no  less than an American programme for an ideological and cultural pole reversal and forcing into line of France. This highlights the methods with which the USA subject entire countries — against the will of their people and behind the back of the public — to her ideological and power-political interest.

Up to now it was whispered only in the niches of the NWO-theorists and was dismissed by the published opinion — provided that it noticed it at all — as „a conspiracy theory“. Now that we have got a direct insight into the propaganda kitchen of the Americans, we should seize the opportunity to  evaluate the knowledge we won :

The paper is all the more informative as it comes from a subordinate office, namely from an embassy, which ordinarily does not elaborate political draughts, but implements them; and just because the author obviously does not find it necessary to explain the legitimacy of the aims and methods outlined in it towards his superiors, it is evident that he already assumes their consensus. We can assume that the strategy developed in this paper is representative for U.S. foreign policy, and that the USA pursue comparable strategies also in other countries.

In this context it is interesting, for example, that the paper deplores:

The French media remains overwhelmingly white, with only modest increases in minority representation on camera for major news broadcasts.

In Germany this nuisance resp. its removal was precisely an object of the „integration pact“ [between the Federal Government and Muslim leaders]. What a coincidence!

Interesting, however, is the implicitness with which the native French are characterised by the fact that they are „white.” For the Americans it is apparently quite natural consider this a racial issue – while the opponents of this policy, as soon as they state it, would promptly be accused of „racism“.

The paper shows that American foreign policy is designed to influence not only the current politics of its allies, but also the composition of their élites, with special emphasis on future élites. These future French élites are to be recruited and indoctrinated in a way that their ideology is compatible with that of the American élites. Whether it is compatible with that of the French people, besides, is second-rate; we will get to it. This has little to do with the usual methods of diplomatic influencing. Rather it is comparable to the attempt not to influence a person by talking to her, but by manipulating her brain.

Just the fact that this can be tried, namely without a sign of bad conscience or even awareness of a problem, shows that the idea of national sovereignty plays no role in the thinking of the American political élites. What was always valid for the much-cited „backyard“ of America, for Latin America, now also is valid for the states of Europe.

If we examine this text now with respect to aims, ideology, and methods of the American influencing, we win at least a partial answer to the question, why the peoples of Europe are obviously under the spell of a self-destructive ideology, and why this ideology is affirmed the more determined the closer we come to the centres of social power. It is not just a coincidence, but result of strategical influencing, that just the élites, whose job is traditionally the preservation and development of a community, do exactly the opposite.

Aims of the U.S. Strategy in France

The aim of this strategy is, in general, the implementation of “American aims and values”. What sounds so trivial that one would like to overlook it, actually contains explosive political implications. Such a phrase is far from being self-evident: Many Americans may not be aware of it, but the word connection “aims and values” is an American speciality. In the foreign policy think tanks of other countries one may also talk about values, as well as about aims or interests. But to pack both into one formula, is typical not only for that paper, but in general for the political language of America, and only America. Continental Europeans with their rather cynical approach to politics tend to consider this emphasis on values just a rhetorical ornament by which power-political and economic interests are decoratively disguised. (Most Europeans have been educated in a Catholic or Lutheran tradition, and the typically puritanical connection of faith and business – or “aims and values”, values and interests – is strange to us.) The self-evidence, however, with which Americans use this formula is not of the kind that expresses a trite phrase, but reflects a deeply internalized ideology.

As far as the political language of European countries refers to „values“, this happens mostly in connection with a concretion – democratic values, liberal values etc. But it would be extremely strange if the German Foreign Office spoke of “German values” and declared spreading them the aim of its policy. This is, again, a specific American feature. Whatever the mentioned values may be – and we will get on to which these are: They are expressively declared American values, which implies: One thing they are certainly not: French values.

To alienate a foreign nation from itself, its values and traditions, seems to be a legitimate aim of American foreign policy. Although the paper defines the aim as leading back the French to their own values (or rather to that what the U.S. administration regards as such), the very fact that efforts from abroad are considered necessary reveals that we are talking about re-education.

The motto is: If what is called “American values” is not universally accepted in reality, change reality! Whether the spreading “of American values” serves to promote American interests, or whether vice versa American power politics serve the spreading of these values, is as fruitless as the question whether the hen or the egg came first – in the same way it was impossible to determine for the Soviet Union  the relation of ideology and power politics by treating the one as a function of the other. It is about two components of the same politicial approach that support each other. Exactly this, internalized as a self-evident fact, is implied in the phrase “American values and interests”.

The Ideology behind the U.S. Strategy

The traditional American view of democracy is that there should be governments

deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Democracy means that the people determines by whom it is governed. However, the U.S. strategy is based upon quite a different ideology, as becomes obvious in Rivkins paper: Democracy is if all ethnic and religious minorities are represented in the ruling élites.

Not the fact that the French élites are selfrecruiting to an unusually high degree is the problem from the American point of view, at least not per se. For this there are arguable reasons: Whether one may criticise or justify it,  in all western countries „democracy“ actually consists basically in the chance to decide which one of two élite groups shall rule. It is the more remarkable what the US embassy actually does criticize:

It is no problem that access to active politics traditionally is refused to the vast majority of the French. But it is a problem that minorities are excluded, either. Implicitly, the idea of a people, consisting of free individuals with the same rights, is given up in favour of the idea of the „nation“ as an arrangement between ethnic groups; if there is not one people, but several of them in the same state, then they all must be represented. However, in this way the idea of democracy in the classical sense of the word is also abandoned. The hypocrisy of the phrase to help the French realize „France´s own egalitarian ideals“ or „of realising its respected democratic values more completely“, turns out here. It is rather about reinterpretation of concepts like „egalitarian“ and „democratic“ to something that would stand no chance to be consensus even in the USA – least of all in France; without mentioning this reinterpretation with just one syllable. Re-education.

One assumes that France is not not going to become a melting pot of the kind the USA – partly wrongfully – claim to be, but that especially muslims, but also blacks, will still reserve their loyalty in the future for their own ethnic or religious group. The access to the élite, according to the paper, should thus not depend on overcoming this attitude and identification with the French people, but is propagated as a right derived from „democracy“.

In this way, a society splitted in parts is raised to an utopian ideal and this just with the claim to prevent that France “will be a more divided country”. Newspeak.

Here, the amalgamation of the ideological with the power-political component of this strategy appears as in a textbook:

… undeniable inequities tarnish France’s global image and diminish its influence abroad. In our view, a sustained failure to increase opportunity and provide genuine political representation for its minority populations could render France a weaker, more divided country. The geopolitical consequences of France’s weakness and division will adversely affect U.S. interests, as we need strong partners in the heart of Europe to help us promote democratic values. Moreover, social exclusion has domestic consequences for France, including the alienation of some segments of the population, which can in turn adversely affect our own efforts to fight global networks of violent extremists. A thriving, inclusive French polity will help advance our interests in expanding democracy and increasing stability worldwide.

The French people must stop pursuing its own interests because the people of the Third World expect – as a reward for the acceptance “of American values” (and military bases) – the right to join without further ado every European state people without having to assimilate even culturally. What is the existence of the French people, what its rights, what its interests, compared to the uplifting view, “to spread the democracy and stability worldwide”?

One sees here how oversimplifying it would be to understand this policy only as „imperialistic“ in the narrower sense, which would imply that “the west”, or even the USA, want to rule the rest of the world; it is as much a matter of melting the European peoples (and white America) with this world and of establishing an order which allows this fusion. It is, well, about a new world order (NWO).

I’ve mentioned above what in the context of this order is to be understood by democracy. Stability means that there should be no more people which could  as a unity, capable of acting, elude this order, let alone even question it. As it is not possible to exterminate the human need to unite to groups, one shifts the formation of groups to the subnational level, turns the civil society into a society of tribes and immobilises these tribes by making their leaders profit by the fleshpots of the system. With that said we come to the methods:

 

The Methods of France’s Ethnic Change or: How to Make a Nation Commit Suicide

Tactic 1: Engage in positive discourse

First, we will focus our discourse on the issue of equal opportunity.

The same trick with which leftist ideologies always are put through. As well as the gender egalitarianism (gender mainstreaming), the systematic hermaphroditisation (dt. “Verzwitterung”) of the society is hung up on the subject of the „equal rights“ with which it has to do nothing at all in reality, a strategy of the re-education, infiltration and national disintegration is tying up to the realisation of a social utopia with the subject of „equal opportunities“.

When we give public addresses about the community of democracies, we will emphasize, among the qualities of democracy, the right to be different, protection of minority rights, the value of equal opportunity, and the importance of genuine political representation.

Propaganda to reinterpretate terms, see above.

In private meetings, we will deliberately direct questions about equal opportunity in France to high-level, non-minority French leaders. Rather than retreating from discussions involving two sacred cows in France …

Massive pressure behind closed doors so that no one gets the idea to ask where several changes, that seem to have happend on their own, come from.

…we will continue and intensify our work with French museums and educators to reform the history curriculum taught in French schools, so that it takes into account the role and perspectives of minorities in French history.

It is about manipulating concepts of history. As I wrote one year ago, this belongs to the core of the NWO agenda, “because globalism is the ideology of the ruling, and, among other things, this means that there may be no divergent concepts of history! Not only the historical facts must be indisputable, no, also the interpretation of these facts and the perspective from which one looks at them has to be the same – which, however, will not be the case as long as the nations themselves are masters of their history and its interpretation. For each of them the own concept of history is shaping her identity. History is for nations about the same thing as is memory for the individual:  the condition for understanding oneself as an individual, remaining identical with himself from birth to death.

A people which gives up its souverignity of interpretating its own history will sooner or later cease to exist. And, as I have demonstrated somewhere else, this is exactly what the NWO requires.”

At the end of this process there will be, presumably, history books like they already exist in America, books like this one:

Tactic 3: Launch aggressive youth outreach

Third, we will continue and expand our youth outreach efforts in order to communicate about our shared values with young French audiences of all socio-cultural backgrounds. Leading the charge on this effort, the Ambassador’s inter-agency Youth Outreach Initiative aims to engender a positive dynamic among French youth that leads to greater support for U.S. objectives and values.

Your values, this is the message, are not the ones of your forefathers, but the ones of America. I hope the young French remember that „Little Red Riding Hood“ is a French fairy tale, and put the question why this strange grandmother has such a big mouth, before it is too late.

To achieve these aims, we will build on the expansive Public Diplomacy programs already in place at post, and develop creative, additional means to influence the youth of France(…)We will also develop new tools to identify, learn from, and influence future French leaders. (…) We will build on existing youth networks in France, and create new ones in cyberspace, connecting France’s future leaders to each other in a forum whose values we help toshape — values of inclusion, mutual respect, and open dialogue.

A subtle brainwash of the future elites of Francem so that the mentioned “values” are implemented „on their own“.

 

Tactic 4: Encourage moderate voices

Fourth, we will encourage moderate voices of tolerance to express themselves with courage and conviction. Building on our work with two prominent websites geared toward young French-speaking Muslims — oumma.fr and saphirnews.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

The French should get a tutorial in agitprop.

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

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

Tactic 5: Propagate best practices

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

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

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

Many thin threads give thick gallow rope.

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doctor Schäuble’s governmental neuroses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s consider, moreover,

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

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

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

From a German Point of View: a Reply to Lawrence Auster

[This article, with an introduction by Baron Bodissey, was also published in Gates of Vienna]

At May 6, Lawrence Auster posted a comment on Germany‘s reaction on Bin Laden‘s death – a comment suddenly highlighting political tensions most of us are normally not aware of. I think it is worthwhile to examine Mr. Auster‘s argument to make clear the nature of these tensions, and what they could mean to the Counterjihad.

Auster‘s starting point is that Chancellor Angela Merkel has been criminally charged for expressing delight over Bin Laden‘s demise. He then quotes a poll according to which „64 percent of Germans do not see the death of Osama bin Laden as something to be celebrated“. To Auster, this indicates the „spiritual death“ brought upon Germany „by the consistent application of liberalism“.

There are some points Auster doesn‘t seem to understand: First of all, the question was not whether Bin Laden‘s death was good or bad, but whether one should celebrate it. In Germany, many terrorists have been killed by security forces during recent decades, and some commited suicide in jail. In no single case did a German government express satisfaction or delight about it, and in no single case there were public celebrations of the kind we are now witnessing in America. Celebrating anyone‘s death, and be it that of an ennemy, is considered undecent in Germany, and therefore, Mrs. Merkel‘s statement was at least an embarassing faux pas, regardless of whether it was illegal or not. It‘s something that is simply not done in this country.

I don‘t blame Mr. Auster for not knowing and not understanding the customs of a foreign country, I just think he should be reluctant to judge what he doesn‘t understand.

Up until now, this has been just a minor disagreement between most Germans on the one hand and most Americans on the other. Given the irrelevance of what we are talking about, it is all the more dismaying that Auster seizes this opportunity to trigger an avalanche of hate and prejudice against Germany, beginning with

And by the way, why are we keeping 50,000 U.S. troops, at a cost of billions a year, in that dead land? For what purpose, other than feeding their economy, which happens to be the largest in Europe?

Well, they are not here to protect Germany from invasions. Indeed, we are invaded, as any European nation is, but the U.S. is the last country who would like to protect us from that – we will pick up this point below. The U.S. have bases in Germany because U.S. forces in the Middle East are supplied from here (and kidnapped persons are distributed from here to secret CIA jails around the globe).

Just think, if the anti-Hitler plotters in 1944 had succeeded in killing him, and if some German leader had expressed his joy, this German judge, if translated back to 1944, would seek to punish him. I guess Germany hasn’t changed so much after all, hmm? Pure liberalism, which the Germans in their humorless fanatical thoroughness aspire to as the opposite of Nazi totalitarianism, is another form of totalitarianism. And in the same way, as I have often remarked, the German-championed transnational opposite of the Nazi nationalism which sought to destroy the nations of Europe, is also destroying the nations of Europe. One way or another, whether in their Nazi form or in their hyper-liberal form, the Germans pose a determined threat to the nations and peoples of the West. To paraphrase Churchill’s famous remark about the Germans, they need to be kept at our feet, or else they will go for our throat.

And he adds

I am not being extreme or „anti-German“ when I say that.

which indeed shows that he doesn‘t share German humourlessness.

The Germans agree with me. They see themselves as a threat to others. That’s why they say that the EU is necessary, to keep them, the ever-threatening Germans, in check.

Many Germans are speaking so, because they were told to speak and think such things. They were taught to consider thousand years of German history just as a pre-history of Hitler. They were taught to regard their history as merely a history of crimes. They were taught that they are a danger to others. They were taught that patriotism and „nationalism“ are the same thing, and that the latter is the root of all evils in the world. They were taught to hate themselves.

It started with the re-education from 1945 on, and this re-education is still going on. To poison an entire nation with self-hatred turned out to be a working concept, and this concept, once successfully applied, was generalized to the Western world as a whole, and as the concept of „white guilt“  is now undermining our civilization. This is nothing you should blame the Germans for. They were just the guinea pigs.

The million-dollar-question is: Why is this done, and who does so?

Mr. Auster may not understand much about Germany, but he has quite correctly understood that we don‘t share the feelings of triumph on Bin Laden‘s death – not due to appeasement, or liberalism, or decadence, and not only due to a special German concept of decence described above. It may be shocking to some, but even militant counterjihadists like me don‘t share it.

Yes, Bin Laden was our enemy, but on the list of our enemies he was not number one, and even not number ten. Islam is marching forward in Europe not by terrorism, but by immigration and ethnic struggle, with strong support from the international political elites. It makes no sense to assert a difference between American and European elites, because they all belong to a transatlantic network centered in, but not confined to, America. Within this network, strategies are made compatible with each other, so that there is no such thing as a strictly national policy. There are disagreements on minor questions, but the general direction is towards establishing a global uniform civilization. The EU is part of this process, and an analyst blaming just Germany for that, as Auster does,

The problem is that the German-led EU which in the German mind is aimed at suppressing the German nation, must suppress all other European nations as well. This is why, just as German nationalism could not be allowed to rule Europe, German anti-nationalism also cannot be allowed to rule Europe. Germany must not rule, period.

proves that his hatred of a particular country is stronger than his analytical capabilities.

Why is the leading power in the „war on terror“ at the same time urging France to open herself to islamic infiltration and secretly fostering this infiltation, as we know by Wikileaks (and there is no reason to assume that the same strategy is not applied to other European countries)? Why is the European power most passionately joining this war – Great Britain – at the same time and with the same passion engaging in its self-Islamization? Why are the Anglo-Saxon powers, while at war with more than one Islamic country, urging Europe to enlarge the European Union more and more, predictably with the result that Turkey and North Africa will join the club, thereby opening Europe to a flood of Muslim immigrants?

The obvious answer is that westernization of the Islamic world and islamization of the Western world are two sides of the same coin.

Establishing a global uniform civilization requires the destruction of traditional patterns of values and loyalties. Nations, religions, traditions enable people to express solidarity with each other; they are a the natural enemies of any tyranny. Globalism means to dissolve these ties that hold society together, making men mere perfect consumers and members of the labour force, subject to a global system of supranational institutions responsible to nobody. Such a system of global mobility of capital and labour, i.e. a global market economy, tends to anarchy on the micro level, thereby requiring further empowerment of the supranational level to enforce a peace the individual states are no longer able to preserve.

This is what the political classes of all western countries, including the United States, are working for. The Muslims with their jihad ambition, and the Left with its childish multicultural utopia are just seen as useful auxiliary forces, which is the reason why they are given their head.

This is behind the slogans of spreading „democracy“, and „liberty“, and „good governance“ and so on; and this is behind the phrases of „cultural enrichment“, „tolerance“, „welcome culture“ and so on. It is probable that the responsible believe in what they say. They probably really believe that they work for a system of peace and freedom. Unfortunately, this demands that opponents are not only enemies, but devils, seemingly working for war and tyranny. The utopian concept of „one world“ implies a hyper-morality and entails the de-humanizing of the enemy.

Labelling opposing countries „rogue states“ means: not to abide with established legal standards with respect to these countries. As my own country has twice been declared a rogue state in the last century, I know what I am talking about, and seeing how easily even a mere opinion poll provokes pure anti-German ethnic hatred among Americans (I think Auster‘s attitude is representative), it isn‘t hard to imagine what the reaction would be if Germany seriously fought Islamization. Even conservatives like Auster, I suppose, wouldn‘t stand by our side.

Torturing so-called terrorists in Guantanamo and elsewhere is not an exception from the rule due to irrefutable requirements of national security (by the way: if it was necessary to examine Bin Laden‘s driver, why was it not necessary to examine Bin Laden himself?), and throwing Bin Laden‘s corpse into the sea is the consequence of this de-humanization. At the same time, it is a warning to any opponent of the new world order, f.e. for counterjihadists, that they have no chance of being treated according to civilized democratic standards if their opposition becomes too strong.

What they do today with Bin Laden is what they did yesterday with German generals, and what they will do tomorrow with anyone fighting their utopia. That‘s why I don‘t celebrate Bin Laden‘s death.