Our Canadian correspondent Rembrandt Clancy has translated an essay and two videos about the rise of the multicultural-fascist European superstate. The translator also includes an introduction that provides additional context for the texts and videos.
After the Enabling Act: Overcoming Socialism
Introduction by Rembrandt Clancy
The original German of Roland Woldag’s essay “After the Enabling Act: Overcoming Socialism” was posted for the first time in May of 2013. It has now appeared again for a second time on the Internet portal eigentümlich frei on 21 February 2014. Although the piece stands on its own, it was given a surprise media context which, although limited to Germany, is yet pathognomonic of a malady prevalent in the West as a whole, hence worth including here as an introduction.
The essay’s reappearance was triggered by an unpleasant altercation which took place on “Studio Friedman”, a talk show hosted by Michel Friedman on Germany’s private N24 news channel. It was supposed to be a discussion between Manuel Sarrazin of the Green Party and Bernd Lucke, Chairman of Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), a Eurosceptic party which is participating in the European elections scheduled for May. The stakes were therefore high, and Lucke had to be discredited. After repeatedly refusing to allow Lucke to finish speaking, and after attempting to associate him with “the extreme Right scene” and pummel him with what Lucke finally called the “right wing populism cudgel”, Friedman insisted on reading the following “racist” quotation, for the second time, while falsely attributing it to Lucke’s AfD candidate, Beatrix von Storch, although it was later found to come from Roland Woldag’s essay:
“Multiculti”… has the task of homogenising the people … and in this way to extinguish them religiously and culturally.”
Friedman then attempted to force Lucke to either stand behind the “racist” quotation or discredit his own candidate. The following 1:27 minute subtitled video shows the climax of the situation, as Bernd Lucke leaves the studio after Friedman drowns him out, refusing to allow him a chance to finish speaking to the quotation. The full video is available in German on YouTube.
The full “racist” quotation reads:
“Multiculti”, as mendacious term for mass-“culture”, has the task of homogenising the people through mutually imposed pressure to adjust and in this way to extinguish them religiously and culturally. The result is the same as for the Nazis: a population brei which binds nothing more than the dependence on a custodial dictatorial regime. Out of National Socialists emerge supra-National Socialists with a Maoist by the name of Barroso as Führer.
Beatrice von Storch and Roland Woldag are both contributors to the Internet portal eigentümlich frei. But Beatrix von Storch made it clear.
The quotation attributed to me by Michel Friedman is NOT mine. It comes from a blogger [Roland Woldag] who is personally unknown to me. Friedman has given expression to a falsehood. His methods are well-known.
It might be noted in passing that there is irony in a liberal academic like Bernd Lucke starting a Eurosceptic party downstream from socialist institutions after the “long march”, since he himself cannot “get real” (Nigel Farage); that is, he has his own “right wing extremists” with whom he must not be seen to associate if he is to avoid being discredited and defamed as some type of “-phobe” by the likes of Michel Friedman: Lucke’s extremists are Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders and Nigel Farage — and the list is not exhaustive. But all that can change.
The deeper irony behind Michel Friedman’s attempt to defame Bernd Lucke with the “racist” quotation is that the essay itself points to this very requirement of Socialism to “dispose of their opponents”:
The champions of the “modern” Zeitgeist need to be on their guard by pointing the finger at the Nazis, for this finger is reflected in history and points back at them.
Roland Woldag operates the website called familienwehr.de, dedicated to the defence of the family. According to the short autobiography which he offers on Die Freie Welt, he was “active in the anti-socialist resistance against the Stalinist regime in the Eastern Zone” and “in 1988 was under Stasi detention, following which he emigrated with his wife and three children to Kiel” in the state of Schleswig-Holstein. The book which most recently impressed him is Oswald Spengler’s Jahre der Entscheidung, which is available in English translation as Hour of Decision [pdf].
Indeed we find Oswald Spengler’s influence in Mr. Woldag’s essay. The old-culture of the West has only one internal enemy, collectivism, as Woldag implies when he refers to the “European breeding ground of Jacobinism”. Spengler calls it “general equality”, but while he too derives it from Jacobinism, he prefers to call it by its contemporary variant, “Bolshevism”, which he saw, not as a foreign excrescence from Moscow, but as having already taken power in the West. Therefore Spengler must also have had National Socialism in mind as a surface variant of Bolshevism, which may well have contributed to the banning of his work. Our own contemporary collectivist mutation, or surface facade, the neo-Bolshevism of Multiculturalism, is also readily recognisable in Spengler’s description:
Such is the trend of Nihilism. […] General equality is to reign, everything is to be equally vulgar. … panem et circenses … Superiority, manners, taste, and every description of inward rank are crimes. Ethical, religious, national ideas, marriage for the sake of children, the family, State authority: all these are old-fashioned and reactionary. … Bolshevism’s home is Western Europe, and has been so ever since the English materialist world-view, which dominated the circles where Voltaire and Rousseau moved as docile pupils, found effective expression in Jacobinism on the Continent. The democracy of the nineteenth century already amounted to Bolshevism. … It is only a step from the Bastille and the equality-demanding guillotine to the ideals and street-fighting of 1848, the year of the Communist Manifesto. ….Bolshevism does not menace us, it governs us. Its idea of equality is to equate the people and the mob, its liberty consists in breaking loose from the Culture and its society. (Oswald Spengler. Hour of Decision [pdf]. pp. 61-62)
Collectivism is the deep structure of socialism, which gives rise to historically variant surface facades. Hans-Peter Raddatz refers to the commonality underlying these mutants as the “Left-Right fusion”. Roland Woldag uses metaphor: the Left-Right dichotomy, Socialism, is between a wall and an open space. Some readers may also wish to hear, or revisit Marc Doll’s excellent video presentation on this subject where he describes the Left and Right political dimension as “brothers in spirit”. The transcript of it can be found below. The video was posted earlier on Gates of Vienna as The Better Lenin, and goes very well with Roland Woldag’s essay. Marc Doll is one of the eight members who revived the White Rose resistance movement in 2012, the same year that Roland Woldag identifies as fatefully similar to 1933.
After the Enabling Act: Overcoming Socialism
by Roland Woldag
What associations does this date evoke? It triggers primarily those thoughts linked with the consequences of the “law to remedy the distress of people and Reich”, the “Enabling Act”, which was passed with a two thirds majority, thereby transferring extraordinary, absolute power to the National Socialist government, and by a margin which Parliament required for a constitutional change. The Parliament had incorrectly assessed the devastating consequences of weakening civil rights. Otto Braun, who with only a brief interruption was Prime Minister of the Frees State of Prussia from 1921 to 1932, was later accustomed to answering the question as to what led to Hitler with the laconic reply: “Versailles and Moscow”.
The point could certainly not have been made more succinctly. Today it is too easy to self-righteously condemn the national-narcissistic form of Socialism from the perspective of historical experience. The people of the period after the democratic election of the National Socialists and the appointment of Hitler [as Reichschancellor] by Hindenburg, who was also supported by the Social Democrats, were incapable of an overall view of Socialism in the years immediately after 1933.
For the National Socialist German Workers’ Party put an end to the civil war between red and brown socialists which had spanned the entire Weimar epoch. For the time being it became more peaceful in the land; and while it lasted, the opportunistic masses considered the penury of the marginalised as the inevitable splinters which would temporarily fall during the rise of a new order. Administrative measures of the National Socialists initiated an exceptional, credit-financed economic upswing, unique for Europe; the revocation of the Versailles Diktat ensured the re-establishment of national self-respect, the society was national-socialistically re-educated and adorned with red flags.
The mood of the proletarian masses, who went over to the National Socialist mainstream in large numbers, remained euphoric for a long time; the successes of Hitler impressed the world and found numerous admirers even among those who would later oppose the war. Only those persons of integrity and refined character were capable of foreseeing which consequences these policies could have. The creeping erosion of civil law was first noticed by those who found themselves in the role of the pariah and the jurists who defended them. Sebastian Haffner bears witness to this trend in his diary Geschichte eines Deutschen [The Story of a German], inasmuch as he describes his pangs of conscience in his capacity of assessor at law and he gives expression as well to his father’s feeling of resignation. Wakeful people, throughout the entire decade of the 1930s, fell increasingly into a more and more agonising minority position should they find themselves in opposition to the self-aggrandising Zeitgeist. Here too in his final book, Ich Nicht [Not Me: Memoirs of a German Childhood], Joachim Fest provides a description, which is once more very familiar to many non-socialists today, a depiction of his father’s isolation by the power of the spiral of silence. The more the bureaucracy is centralised, the more sweeping and intimidating the power over the people exposed to it, the more aggressive and rapacious the redistribution, the more arbitrary the law; then the more socialistic, which is to say, the more Left is the state.
And the obverse also applies: the more the body politic is characterised by subsidiarity, the greater the responsibility of the single individual has for himself and his neighbour, the more consistent the law, the more voluntary the solidarity, the more selfless the compassion of the society; then, the more just is the state.
The self-definition, “National Socialist”, is not a function of false labelling. The Left-Right schema is an intra-Left polemic of segregation pertaining to the rivalry of the socialist brigades. Just as everything has two sides, so the socialist camp also has a left and a right. To classify National Socialism within its own socialist milieu as Right is therefore justified. However, to expand this division further and to claim that to the right of National Socialism there can or should only be criminals, clearly illustrates the narrowness and intolerance of the socialists in the social democratic block parties of the German Bundestag. If only socialists were Right and Left, what would be in the middle? Moderate socialists? But socialists in any event?
The malicious intent is clear: the “fight against the right” is to criminalise everyone who is not ideologically aligned with the Left — indeed, to criminalise those beyond the socialists’ own camp. In this respect the democrats in the Reichstag are agreed because they are traditionalists. There can be no doubt, however, that non-leftists such as conservatives, the religious as well as libertarians are to the right of socialists, and of course also to the right of National Socialists. To the right of the masses, ideologically regimented by the custodians of “political correctness” is, in the main, only free space for liberals — there begins the world of the self-responsible people.
To the left of the Left there is in fact only the wall, in front of which stand Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists Hitlerites and Maoists who dispose of their opponents. The entire Left are collectively accountable for the systematic mass murder and pogroms of the twentieth century, for these crimes correspond to the hubris which unites all socialists: the pursuit of unlimited power in the homogenous people’s state [Volksstaat] or population state [Bevölkerungsstaat] *. This pursuit makes use of the crowbar of an inverted race-politics: “Multiculti”, as mendacious term for mass-“culture”, has the task of homogenising the people through mutually imposed pressure to adjust and in this way to extinguish them religiously and culturally. The result is the same as for the Nazis: a population brei which binds nothing more than the dependence on a custodial dictatorial regime. Out of National Socialists emerge supra-National Socialists with a Maoist by the name of Barroso as Führer [emphasis added, see Introduction].
* [Translator’s note; The Volksstaat and the Bevölkerungsstaat have no corresponding English terminology which makes this distinction clear, and both state forms are described here as homogenous [homogenen]. The Volksstaat, the people’s state, is ethnically homogeneous with provisional (because it is imperialistic) territorial boundaries, but it is massified or regimented within a deep-structural collectivism, based on a retrograde-utopian primal-lore of race or class, as with the Third Reich and the East German Volksrepublik respectively. The Bevölkerungsstaat is a “brei”, a mix, in that it is made up of diverse deterritorialised, uprooted ethnicities; and the territory itself no longer belongs to its indigenous population (Multiculturalism). In the context of Oswald Spengler, both state forms would reflect only a surface distinction. Culture, the inner soul-form, the “religious springtime” of a people has matured into its civilisational phase. The people become a “civilisational residue” which Spengler also expresses as the Fellah type [Typus des Fellachen] which can last for centuries; the “cultural pyramid” vanishes “from the top down” as the period of late civilisation expresses the “inevitable destiny” of the old-culture. And there is “appalling depopulation”. Cf. Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West. Vol. II, New York: Knopf. p. 105, & Vol I, p. 30]
On the European breeding ground of Jacobinism, democratic politicians are once again today pushing through big-government (totalstaatliche) goals against the will of the people. In this respect the block parties of the parliamentary system are once again located in the forecourt of universal crimes against humanity. Party democracy was always the precursor of socialism. Socialism, in the shape of democracy, is always a self-propelled mechanism which goes the way of the erosion of rights.
The champions of the “modern” Zeitgeist need to be on their guard by pointing the finger at the Nazis, for this finger is reflected in history and points back at them. Socialists have always torn down borders; first national frontiers, then currency boundaries — and with them, cultural, religious and ethical barriers. And today they take their equality delirium so far as to tear down every wall of shame, for example through gender mainstreaming. Never have socialists hesitated to shake humanity’s self-conception and cause the masses to doubt their self-perception until such time as their culture collapses under the adjustment pressure of collectivism. Common to all varieties of socialism are an aggressive atheism and a death cult, which today the Zeitgeist-compliant portion of population parades on their clothing or displays tattooed on their skin — the death’s head. In order to make way for a culture of death, the attack on life occurs either directly by means of organised violence, or indirectly through the organised dismantling of life-affirming structures such as the family and religion.
Today’s “Antifa” is nothing other than a hostile mirror imaging within their sphere of influence. The regime offers the characters supporting them the possibility of enhancing their own moral worth by the risk-free living out of resentments against those whom the democratic state has defined as pariahs. Any group under socialism, also under the social democratic version, is always an “enemy of the state”. In this circumstance, whether the person attacked has broken any valid law, is irrelevant — affiliation with the wrong side is sufficient.
[Translator’s note: The European Stabilisation Mechanism (ESM) of 2012, by the adoption of which the German Bundestag relinquished its fiscal sovereignty and approved immunity provisions for ESM elites, has been compared with Enabling Act of 1933.
What catastrophe will this date unleash? Are associations with an Enabling Act once more emerging?
Still more serious, this time it is happening without parliamentary approval, which is to say, it is happening by means of frank lawbreaking. All the elements for an international-socialist dictatorship were put in place in the fateful year of 2012.* In 2012 unelected Commissars and governors of the EUSSR authorised themselves to an unfettered power, positioned themselves outside the law by means of immunity, broke written laws and infringed the people’s right to self-determination, destroyed the national currencies and pursued an unlimited expansion of the money supply, drove the body politic into resignation and bitterness, and all without the two-thirds majority which an Adolf Hitler still required with his socialist workers’ party. While the ends justify the means again, the people are ignored and cut short, and the fiat money cartel once again finances history*. The central banks of the Western social-democracies narcotise the people today with the gratuitously propagatable drug of paper money, the commercial banks act as money-drug-dealers and corrupt politicians secure their power and maintenance with it. The combination of these factors destroys the Western social democracies which have been religiously, culturally, and demographically bled dry, and it destroys the principle of subsidiarity by using the welfare state to haggle solidarity and charity away from people. The arrogant presumption of knowledge which is enshrined in Brussels legislation destroys the power of the markets to make projections and leads to planned-economic maldistributions which are then corrected by reductions in civil liberties.
Centralisation of power, ideological tailoring of the economy, derision of natural law, tearing down of boundaries, destruction of identities, breaking of taboos, mockery of religion, massification of people: that is the essence today of socialistic phantasies of omnipotence which is once more master of the German parliament.
In former times on a prefabricated building in the centre of Dresden a statement hung resplendent in large letters: Der Sozialismus siegt” [Socialism will triumph]. And the Dresdeners saxonised it to read: “Dr Sozialismus siecht“ [Socialism will decline]. Now is the time to overcome it. In the end it is a question of self-respect — and of survival.
21. February 2014
* [The concept that socialism controls history through fiat currency is also evocative of Oswald Spengler who understood “progressivism” as rationalism “detached from its roots” and expressed in the political realm. Spengler writes: “…this Bolshevism… was born in Western Europe,… as the last phase of the liberal democracy of 1770 and the last triumph of political Rationalism — which is to say, of the presumptuous intention to control living history by paper systems and ideals.” Oswald Spengler. Hour of Decision [pdf]. p. 62]
Bernd Lucke of the AfD walks off of “Studio Friedman”
Michel Friedman: I am asking YOU the question. You are your candidate’s Chairman. I quote the sentence once more:
“multiculti” … has the task of homogenising the people … and in this way to extinguish them religiously and culturally.”
Do you stand behind this statement?
Bernd Lucke: Look, I protest completely that it has anything to do with racism.
Michel Friedman: Do you stand behind this statement?
Bernd Lucke: It is not my statement. I protest that our candidate…. Allow me to finish speaking when you ask me a question!
Michel Friedman: Exactly, the question was, do you stand behind this statement? That is my question?
Bernd Lucke: Allow me to answer the question. When you do not allow me to answer the question….
Michel Friedman: My question was, do you stand behind this statement?
Bernd Lucke: So, and I told you quite clearly: I protest that a candidate of the AfD is impugned with racism based on this statement.
Michel Friedman: Do you stand behind this statement? …. Do you stand behind the this statement?
Bernd Lucke: No, that is not my statement, but you have imputed racism to it.
Michel Friedman: If that is not racism, then what is racism?
Bernd Lucke: If you do not allow me to finish speaking, then I will leave the programme.
Michel Friedman: But do come back!
Bernd Lucke: — No! I am leaving the programme. Goodbye!
Manuel Sarrazin: Mr. Lucke, I would like to discuss another subject!
Manuel Sarrazin: Shall the two of us continue?
Michel Friedman: The two of us will continue, of course.
Marc Doll: National Socialism and the Left: “Brothers in Spirit”
Because the situation is similar, the development is similar to what took place at the time. The White Rose was founded exactly 70 years ago; that is, in June or July 1941 and therefore just 10 years too late. Accordingly had the White Rose been founded in 1931, perhaps the worst could have been prevented, or at least they could have mounted a more effective resistance. But that was not the case. And we would not wish to make these mistakes yet again. So we are founding the White Rose anew. Let her rise again anew, during a time in which resistance is still possible, and the people can still be made aware in a timely manner, so that the worst is avoided.
We have here two principal messages: Firstly; — the Nazis were left-wing, a leftist movement; the second is, they are here once again and preside over the ’68 generation and the ‘are marching through the institutions’ in all possible foci of power.
Let me go into it very briefly because it is perhaps rather new for many people. So firstly, the Nazis were a left-wing movement. At first the NSDAP had been called the DAP, or the German Workers Party, which was clearly a left-wing party. Hitler said that he acquired his ideas from Marx. Goebbels said that Hitler was the better Lenin. Hitler was present at the leftist rallies in the early 1920s. He said his heart was with the Left, just as Goebbels said that his heart was with the Left. We are politically Left. Hitler regretted having never carried out the ‘strike against the Right’ and so forth. All important historians verify this with irrefutable evidence. It is indisputable that the Nazis are a left-wing movement. The only thing they did was to take on the nationalistic component for reasons of electoral strategy, because they simply had more success with it in the end.
With their nationalism they also became the opponents of the Red Front, who were the left-wing of the Left so to speak, from whence all these battles came about.
But the nationalistic element does not mean they were no longer a socialist movement. It was still National Socialism, they simply chose race and not class to subjugate people. — That is the same system.
When one asks today what Left or Right is, then one always gets the answer from everyone:… yes, Right is against immigrants, Left is for immigrants. But it is apparent that it cannot be that the two large political currents are only about the question of immigrants. That cannot be the case.
There was nothing so Right as the aristocrats who sat in parliament to the Right after the French Revolution. They wanted to re-establish the old order. How was this old order constituted? It was a hierarchical order: beggars, farmers, traders, merchants, king; and also at the very top the Kaiser, hence a hierarchical order. But it made as few state interventions as possible. If the people paid their tithes, their taxes, and performed their military service, then they were left alone. The Right stands for as little state interference as possible, and a hierarchical society. The Left, on the contrary, stands for a horizontally structured society, standardized on the basis of equality,… not equality before the law, but equal in result. That is very important to understand.
A standardized society requires a great deal of state interference from above. And suppose one asks: “how was the Third Reich arranged?” It was naturally a left-wing movement, a standardised society, a conformist mass, and a massive totalitarian, invasive state. No one can therefore seriously maintain that it had anything to do with a right-wing movement.
But now the Left adopted a ploy. The Right, the Nobility, died out politically in 1944 at the latest. That is still the case today; — no one stands by these demands of the Nobility, of this hierarchical society. And for that reason the Left simply said: Yes, the Nazis fought us, and on the right-wing there was a vacuum. So they simply packed the Nazis off to the vacant right wing, and hence the Left became the Antifascists.
But that is not the case. Both constituted the same system. They are brothers in spirit to the others whom they merely packed off to the opposite wing. And that is the first core message we must make clear to the people. It is the same spirit, it is the same line of action, which these Antifa or some such, engage in today, in common with the SA, the Nazis back in those days, also all left-wing constructs: the Soviet Union; also North Korea today, Cuba, China under Mao Zedong, Pol Pot… There are no exceptions which somehow differentiate them from the Nazis, from the system of the Third Reich.
Even Eugenics, race theory, is a leftist invention out of the 19th century, which also found an echo in the Soviet Union, and so on. And that is the first message which we should wish to convey here. The second is, they are back again. One must always keep in mind: What is Socialism in general? Socialism means not only the forced conformity of mankind, which is naturally against man’s nature, because we are all different, fortunately, but socialism also means that man must be equalised from above, which is misanthropic.
But for that very reason, Socialism above all, moves harshly against those who think differently, against dissidents. It must eliminate them. It does not get around it in any other way. And every time when a leftist… leftists have a huge problems…. democratic leftists have a huge problem entertaining different opinions because they are simply socialistically- or left-indoctrinated. And that is the opposite to a free pluralistic society.
If we reflect: What is a free pluralistic society? It protects different opinions. It accepts other opinions. It resolves differences in opinion which are natural among men.
Even among neighbours differences of opinion occur. In a family differences of opinion occur. One resolves opinions in debates, by arguments; …. And one decides in elections, in votes, what is to be done in the end. Today we cannot speak of that any longer.
Almost no one dares any longer to express his own opinion. It does not happen any more.
Everyone knows what happens through the Left when he expresses his opinion, and holds views which do not correspond to the standard opinions. Then comes a matchless campaign. Unleashed then are the politicians of all parties, but also organisations, pseudo-scientists like Heitmeyer,… or also other organizations: — the media, which is leftist up to 70 or 80%, the media pounces upon one and drags one through the mud,… lies and manipulation, and they deceive the general public. They impute attributes which do not apply at all. And as if that is not enough, then there are even the storm troopers of these leftist thinkers.
They are above all the Antifa, the Left Youth, and also the Ver.di Youth, Green Youth, Jusos, who with anti-democratic, party fascist methods, proceed against those who think differently. There is really no noticeable difference from the SA therefore when murder, character assassination,. material damage and the like takes place.
Private life is spied out. The work place is spied out. Everything is done so that the person’s existence, also his professional career, as with Sarrazin, is lost;… even Sarrazin’s wife lost her job because he turned against this leftist righteousness.
All this we recognise from former times, not yet with the intensity it had then,… but as I said, we want to establish the White Rose 10 years beforehand in order that worse be prevented. The goal of it is to achieve a free, pluralistic society. And I think that fighting for it is certainly worth it.