Hostility Toward Germans, Part III: White Guilt and Islamic Chauvinism

Written by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage

Translated by J M Damon

A translation of a German blog posted at <http://korrektheiten.com/2011/08/06/deutschenfeindlichkeit-teil-3-und-schluss-white-guilt-und-islamischer-chauvinismus/>

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

Expansion of the Paradign of anti German Hostility to the Entire West

As we have seen, hostility toward Germany and Germans exists on three levels.On the lowest (first) level, it is the kind of hostility or antagonism that is directed toward a specific Volk or people (in our case the Germans.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islamic Chauvinism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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