Archive
Categories

Artikel-Schlagworte: „new world order“

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!

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”.