A Moral Duty to Join the Lawful Resistance

On April 26 we published a translation of Michael Mannheimer’s “Call to Collective Resistance”, which earned the author and activist a penal order from the German judicial system. Below is Mr. Mannheimer’s follow-up call, which was published last week on his website, as translated by Rembrandt Clancy. The translator also includes an introduction by Michael Stürzenberger.

Michael Mannheimer’s Second Call for Collective Resistance of the German People against the Planned Abolition of Germany

Introduction by Michael Stürzenberger

Original Source: Politically Incorrect (21 April 2014)

After his first call to resistance on 9 April 2011, which received much attention and brought him a penal order [Strafbefehl] for “incitement to hatred” [Volksverhetzung], Michael Mannheimer today published his second Call. He considers that we are in the midst of the third attack of Socialism against the citizens of Europe, and that we are at the same time in the middle of the third attack of Islam against “Fortress Europe”; both attacks being directly connected with each other.

Michael and I are both members of the “2012 Re-establishment of the White Rose [Weißen Rose] of 1942” [Gates of Vienna reported], and I now emphatically join with him in his Call. The resistance must immediately become clearly visible on the streets through large demonstrations, through critical contributions to discussions at events which collaborate with Islam, through effective counteractions at rallies of Islam-appeasing parties and organisations, as well as through the distribution of leaflets in the spirit of the White Rose…

The resistance of the German people must therefore in the first instance be directed against the Islamisation of our country and at the same time against those who eagerly aid and abet it. These are chiefly the anti-patriotic, German-hating Left-extremists, who in their 40-year “march through the institutions” have established themselves everywhere in our country: in parties, churches, “social” organisations, the judiciary, police, unions, and above all also in the media.

The problem is that for the Germans at the moment, everything is still going very well. The day before yesterday [19 April 2014, Bild.de] it was announced that two-thirds of all Germans had no worries about money. As long as the German Michel [ordinary German] can uninhibitedly shop in the shopping malls, the many aberrations in our country will not be apparent to him, and it is these that the mainstream media in its mass indoctrination makes every effort to conceal. Next to no one realises the insidious infiltration which is now massively accelerating through the wave of mainly Muslim asylum seekers. At the same time the German people undergo a veritable hammering in the media, telling us that we now have to be good people and must receive this Biblical stream of “refugees” among us. Note: Very many of these are followers of an ideology which is antagonistically disposed toward us. And only about 1.5% of asylum seekers are actually politically persecuted; the rest consist entirely of economic refugees who wish to have a go at our money troughs.

Here is Michael Mannheimer’s second call to resistance. Be active! No longer allow yourself to be stultified. Resist!

The Second Call for Collective Resistance of the German People against the Planned Abolition of Germany

By Michael Mannheimer

Original Source: Michael Mannheimer Blog (21 April 2014)

“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes a duty!” — Bertold Brecht (1898-1956)

If we Germans do not rise up now, we will perish as a nation and as a culture.

For a long time now we Germans have had every reason to rise up against injustices, lies and chaos brought about by a politics which, together with most of the media, has raised our abolition to a matter of top priority. Ever more frequently the law exists only on paper. Policy, politicians, judges and executives bend it almost daily. Whether it be re-unification; whether it be the abolition of the hardest currency in German history, the German mark; whether it be the handing over of constitutionally inalienable sovereign jurisdiction to the EU administration in Brussels, elected by no one; or whether it be multiculturalisation prescribed from above, which in truth is Islamisation and represents a cultural and freedom-diminishing impoverishment of Germany, in none of these cases were the people asked for their approval as is prescribed in the Basic Law; whereas in all of these cases, policy has violated the firm statutory foundations of our society, and politicians have broken their oath, according to which they have solemnly declared the following:

“I swear that I will dedicate my efforts to the well-being of the German people, promote their welfare, protect them from harm, uphold and defend the Basic Law and the laws of the Federation, perform my duties conscientiously, and do justice to all. So help me God.” [“Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany”, Article 56 (Oath of Office), Official Translation of the German Bundestag.]

Translator’s note: As context for the paragraph which follows, a rider is attached to the above quoted Article 56 of the Basic Law which states: “The oath may also be taken without religious affirmation.”]

This oath has degenerated into a mere payment of lip service without any moral and legal binding force. Federal Chancellor Schröder refused, for example, — without legal basis [ohne Rechtsgrundlage] — the concluding phrase “So help me God”; and the Greens and Left Party [Linkspartei] wish to eliminate the oath of office altogether, but particularly the formula “the well-being of the German people”. One wonders to which well-being and to which objective these politicians wish to devote their power.

Not since the dark period of 1933-45 have we West Germans been as lacking in freedom as we are today. The democracy in which we currently live has degenerated into an empty husk of a word. Power (Gk.: kratia) neither emanates from the people (Gk.: demos), nor does the media inform us truthfully and objectively about world events or about the quite flagrantly planned abolition of Germany. What has become undeniable over the course of time is this: the Left have been conspiring with the politicians and countless leftist groups (unions, antifa) against their own people.

We find ourselves in the middle of the era of the third attack of socialism against the citizens of Europe, and the contemporaneous, third attack of Islam against “Fortress Europe”. Both attacks are directly interrelated.

The first large attack of the Socialists against Germany occurred in the name of its national variant, National SOCIALISM. It was not only statements by prominent Nazis like Hitler or Goebbels which verify that the Nazis understood themselves as the genuine variant of the hated socialism of the Soviet type. Millions of KPD [Communist Party of Germany] and SPD [Social Democratic Party] voters were of the same opinion in 1933: they voted for the NSDAP [Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei] and thereby helped the Nazis to their ultimate political breakthrough.

As more and more historians view it, and as the world economist, Ludwig von Mises, demonstrated from the economic standpoint, the enmity between Hitler and Stalin was not simply a war between contrary ideologies, but had all the character of a civil war between similar ideologies, not unlike the subsequent mortal enmity which arose between the USSR and the China of Mao Zedong. The Nazis were in reality Left. That this has been concealed is probably one of the most successful historical distortions in modern times.

The second and more successful attack of the socialists against Germany occurred in the former DDR (German Democratic Republic, GDR) with the support of the Soviet Union. As we know today, both attempts by the socialists to turn Germany into a Communist state-form of everlasting duration failed in the end.

However, since 1968 the Left have made their famously infamous “March through the Institutions“ and have been spurred on by German reunification, which gave the West German Left millions of the best socialistically schooled DDR-citizens, brought to them a party structure seasoned over decades (SED-PDS-Left party); and above all, bestowed on them an unexpected financial injection of GDR-billions which has been “lost” until now. With all of this, the Left finds itself in an unexpected ascendancy and in a few years they have been so successful in carrying out their project for the final abolition of Germany, that our country is now endangered as never before in its glorious and also painful history.

My first call on the German People to Resistance of 9 April 2011

Against this renewed, ground level attack upon our people, I published on 9 April 2011 a first call to resistance, which found national and international attention. However, it brought a penal order (Strafbefehl) against me for “incitement to hatred” (Volksverhetzung). The plaintiff was an Imam in Düsseldorf, a fact which my enemies intentionally conceal. Until today, three years after my Call, no court date has been entered.

We Islam-critics are defamed by the media as “Islam haters”, “xenophobes”, “racists” or “the New Right”. Nothing is more untrue than these defamations. On the contrary, we stand in the Enlightenment tradition of Voltaire, Immanuel Kant, Thomas Hobbes or René Descartes. All of them understood by “Enlightenment” that the highest accomplishment of human reason is to liberate itself from erroneous patterns of thinking, ideologies or rationales. We Islam-critics refer to Kant’s famous definition of what constitutes Enlightenment:

“Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if the cause of it lies, not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. The motto of Enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have the courage to use your own reason.” [“An answer to the Question: “What is Enlightenment“]

All philosophers of the Enlightenment were critical of religion, and criticism of religion in the end freed Christians from the yoke of the Church; for these philosophers, by virtue of their criticism of established authority, ensured that Europe could develop from a feudal system of oppression to a flourishing democracy.

No left-wing journalist would come up with the idea of condemning Marx, Lenin or Schopenhauer as xenophobes or racists for their sharp criticism of Islam. Yet we are labelled as such, although we do and say nothing other than what the philosophers of the Enlightenment did and said. Thus, just as the Left in former times defamed the critics in their countries as “Western agents” or “counter-revolutionary”, so they defame us in the same way, merely substituting terminology and adapting it to the times. If a comparison is appropriate, then it is this: we Islam-critics are undoubtedly the dissidents of the present wherever the Left is in charge.

The goal of the Left: collective re-education of the German people; and at best, their complete abolition.

One goal of the Left, including that of other numerous leftist associations (especially the unions and the criminal organisation, the “antifa”, which they support), is the collective re-education of the German people to a multicultural state; above all, a state informed by Islam — against the Will of the people. In this respect the Left operate very effectively in the media and politics and they have virtually monopolised the former.

An additional goal, and one which is really of paramount importance, is the final abolition of Western culture and Christianity — (Note, interestingly enough, not religion as a whole) — pursuant to the neo-Marxist doctrine of the Frankfurt School, whereby all misery of the world stems from the capitalist West (especially Europe) and therefore its cultural, religious and family structures must be completely shattered, before one can finally set about creating the “New Man” as Marx and Lenin describe him: an historically peerless, revolutionary human type, who is in himself peaceful, disposed to be altruistic and anti-family, and to whom every striving for profit at the cost of others is foreign.

This consciously planned auto-genocide is reminiscent in its mania of the auto-genocide of Stone Age Communist Pol Pot who was supported by China. Within fewer than four years Pol Pot decimated his people by half in the notorious “killing fields”. He received his ideological schooling in the Paris universities, which at that time had already been ideologically indoctrinated with Marxism, and where he studied radio electronics in the years 1949 to 1953 without having completed his programme. It was there that he further developed his Communist ideas, took part in the leftist student movement and joined the Parti communiste français. Many of the dictator’s later fellow travellers likewise lived in the French capital and represented communist interests. Pol Pot wanted to eradicate root and branch the “feudal character” of the Cambodians, in order to then create his communist ideal man of Marxist-Leninist stamp. To that end he had entire cities in Cambodia evacuated; at first the intelligentsia, and later the entire middle class were liquidated in the hundreds of “killing fields”.

His actions were acclaimed by leftist student leaders in the West; for example, by the current Premier Kretschmann [of Baden-Württemberg], who was a Communist at that time, as well as Jürgen Trittin [the Greens]. Pol Pot’s action was also applauded by the leftist opinion makers Jean-Paul Sartre (France) and that arch-leftist, who hates America in common with Israel, the Jew Noam Chomsky, the most important leftist opinion maker in the USA in the second half of the twentieth century. And all of them characterised Pol Pot’s state system as one of peace and equality for everyone, when in reality it was a slaughterhouse for all Cambodians. The gist of what Pol Pot said was this: If only 100,000 right-minded Cambodians survive our purge, then the whole thing will prove to have been worthwhile; and all the while, the Western Left, especially Sartre and Chomsky, dismissed the rumours and news of an ongoing genocide in the sealed-off Cambodia as Western “CIA-propaganda”.

The auto-genocide planned for Germany and Europe carries the same sociopathological features as those demonstrated in the Cambodian model under Pol Pot’s socialists. This madness has seized large sections of the European “elites” and is historically — with the exception of the Pol Pot regime — without precedent.

[Translator’s note: In the original German version, the following italicised parenthesis is embedded in the next paragraph after the phrase “the Hitler regime”, and it is not indented as it is here.]

(Adolf Hitler swore on 30 January 1933 before Paul von Hindenburg, the oath required by the Reichsminister law of 27 March 1933:

“I shall employ my strength for the welfare of the German people, protect the constitution and laws of the German people, conscientiously discharge the duties imposed on me and conduct my affairs of office impartially and with justice to everyone.”)

The European socialists have grasped their one-time chance to administer the ultimate deathblow to the Western countries, whose political immune systems have suffered a fundamental weakening brought in the wake of the trauma visited by the Hitler regime and by the most destructive war in human history which was triggered as its consequence. Whoever opposes their plans of mass immigration, or whoever positions himself against the madness of the multiculti-society, is disparaged as a “right-winger” or as a “Nazi”. In the face of this extremely successful Nazi cudgel, the people feel just as helpless as their historically mediaeval counterparts felt as witches or wizards.

Even though it may not be evident to everyone today, future generations — if Europe survives in the form we know — will speak of the present age as the period of the second inquisition. For the Left understands how to instrumentalise for their own interests the guilt feelings of Europeans over the Second World War, and also over their colonial history; and all in just as sophisticated a way as did the mediaeval Church understood, both long before and after the Middle Ages, how to exploit mankind’s Biblical “original sin” for her own purposes.

One hundred and thirty million people have fallen victim to the socialist experiments within one century. That does not trouble our leftists. Now they have brought on board the most genocidal ideology in human history: Islam

Because up to now the Socialists have always failed in their more than one hundred year effort to conquer Europe, they have brought to life the ideas of the Frankfurt School, resorting to the use of population replacement as a means to suit this situation, and are inundating Europe with the largest mass immigration in human history, with over 50 million Muslim immigrants up to now. They are quite consciously bringing them from culturally alien and Muslim countries, since occidental Christian immigrants would not advance their objective of a dissolution of classical Europe — and Hindus and Buddhists are intrinsically more tolerant toward other religions and systems than Islam, which has looked upon Christians as its primary enemy for 1400 years.

With the untrammelled influx of Islam, the face of our continent has changed so drastically within less than a decade that there are numerous places in most metropolises where one no longer discerns if he is still in Europe.

But with Islam there have also come to us phenomena previously unknown: honour killings; female genital cutting (infibulations); criminal drug gangs; human trafficking rings; Islamic ghettoes, in which the Sharia has replaced the Constitution; religious intolerance, murder and threats of murder against critics of this totalitarian and genocidal political ideology.

In its violation of human rights, Islam, as a totalitarian system, does not in any way take second place to the system of National Socialism and the no less totalitarian Socialism.

The achievement of world domination (of dar Al-Islam) is the real goal of Islam, to which all other goals are subordinated. For the achievement of this goal, which it shares in common with National and International Socialism, Islam created the instrument of the “holy war” (jihad). In 1400 years, more people have fallen victim to this “perpetual jihad” than in all the wars of mankind taken together.

According to the German Historian Hans Meiser (“Völkermorde vom Altertum bis zur Gegenwart” or “Genocide from Antiquity to the Present”), with over 300 million murdered non-Muslims, Islam takes a substantial first place lead ahead of other genocidal ideologies in ranking list of murderous ideologies, followed by Socialism, which within a century yielded 130 million persons murdered in the name of Marx and Lenin.

Socialism is the primary infection of our society. Islam is simply a secondary infection which is derived from it.

The entire Western Left stands behind the mass immigration of Muslims into Western societies. Thus the two worst enemies of mankind have combined to complete their war of extermination against Western civilisation. Beginning with the ’68ers and continuing with the Greens, whose Communist origin the population still fails to recognise thanks to the massive disinformation by the media (the majority of whose editors vote Left-Green), the middle class parties have been gradually infiltrated by the Socialists and have proven too weak to ward them off.

On the contrary, they have swivelled toward the politics of the Left and, today, in many respects they have evolved into the driving force of mass immigration and the ideology of political correctness that stands behind it. A contemporary pan-German voter has in aggregate the same mock alternative at the ballot box as during the period of the GDR: Voters at that time were allowed to “decide” between the Central Party SED (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands — Socialist Unity Party) and the block parties which had been brought into forcible conformity (gleichgeschaltet) with it.

Renewed Call to Collective Resistance of the German People against the Enemies within their own Ranks, according to Article 20, Section 4 of the Basic Law

Given the policy of the abolition of the Germans, by means of the above described replacement of the population (Umvolkung)* on the part of the Left; and given the irreversible surrender of constitutionally defined sovereign rights of the German people to a supra-national authority, and a super-authority (Brussels), whom no one has elected, we Germans must see to our own defence by fighting against these policies.

[* Translator’s note, Umvolkung: (The prefix “um“, about or around; “Volk: people). No English word or phrase conveys the historical associations of this neologism. The preposition “um” meaning “round”, “around” or about” when used as a prefix can intensify in meaning to suggest a radical “change-around”, even into the very opposite of an original condition; as in this case, the exchange of one “people” (Volk) for another in a territory over a short period of time, and in a way which also signifies a complete reversal or replacement of values. In the Nazi period, the term was in part associated with the policy of Lebensraum; hence, the forced Germanisation of a territory. Michael Mannheimer uses it in its negative sense of de-Germanisation, and in its positive sense of propaganda-propagated Islamisation. The term is therefore to be taken against the backdrop of Mr. Mannheimer’s declaration that the historical Nazis were “Left”. Thus, in his contemporary usage of the term, the author is pointing to the continuity of the Left’s policies with their Nazi past, which together with its ‘unmasking’ of the apparently counterintuitive phenomenon of self-directed racism, the pattern of a reaction formation (Freud) is suggested as the psychopathological dynamic behind the Left’s new mutant, the collectivism of multiculturalism. (Cf. a short Wikipedia article, which is of rather limited value. Readers of German can find a more extensive, but still incomplete account at Metapedia.)]

History teaches that the only people who have the prospect of a life of self-determination and freedom are those who fight for both. Germany and Europe would not be the first high cultures which, because of their inner weakness, disappeared from the face of our planet.

The right to resistance is a natural right and cannot be bestowed on or taken away by anyone. As Germans we are thorough, but we are the only people for whom this right is expressly enshrined in the constitution. Thus Article 20, Section 4 of the Basic Law declares:

All Germans shall have the right to resist any person [jeden] seeking to abolish this constitutional order (Michael Mannheimer: liberal-democratic order is meant here*), if no other remedy is available [Official translation of the German Bundestag].

*[Translator’s note: The idea behind Mr. Mannheimer’s note is redundant with this English translation, which already clearly specifies “constitutional order”. Article 20:4, in the original German version, specifies only “this order” (diese Ordnung), with “constitutional order” (verfassungsmäßige Ordnung) understood, being that the meaning is carried over from the previous section 3 of Article 20, — hence Mr. Mannheimer’s clarification. (Cf. German edition of the Basic Law)]

That no statutory limit was defined for this resistance was intentional. For were such a limit to be drawn; as for example, prohibition of the use of violent means, then every resistance would be doomed to failure from the very outset and the aforementioned law would thereby be pointless.

Moreover, everyone has the right, pursuant to Article 20, Section 4 of the constitution, to mount resistance to arbitrary government. This right to resistance encompasses both passive resistance through the refusal to obey orders, and active resistance, through the use of violence, but it stands under the absolute condition of subsidiarity, the section’s specified presupposition that no other remedy be possible; that is, it is no longer to be expected that the state will use its authority to effectively resist the abolition of the constitutional order, and all envisaged legal remedies of the judicial system offer no prospect of success. The distinguished German expert in constitutional law writes:

“The Constitutional state guarantees the individual effective legal protection… … If for instance the competent organs generally fail to guarantee security and order for the free individual, then the state forfeits its claim to obedience in respect of its subjects, and the state of resistance comes into effect. … The duty of the citizen to keep the peace and the prohibition against self-redress exists, however, only to the extent of the state’s effective legal protection. The citizens’ right to self-redress comes into effect in borderline cases, in which by way of exception no juridical remedy is attainable and the interim acceptance of a violation of rights by the organs of the state is unreasonable.”

Isensee, Josef. “Das legalisierte Widerstandsrecht” (“The Legalised Right to Resistance”), Verlag Gehlen, Bad Hornburg 1968.

Thus, the identifiable, ever more pervasive departure from the laws in this country entitles each citizen to courageous resistance, according to his situation, pursuant to Article 20, Section 4 of the Constitution, since violation of rights by “state organs” is taking place daily in our country.

However, it is probably already too late for a peaceful resistance. Given the alternative of whether in the foreseeable future we will live in an Islam-dominated state or in a free state, all political parameters point to the former version. In just a few decades more Muslims than bio-Germans will be living here; and with their help, the Islamic organisations — as repeatedly indicated — will abolish the Constitution and proclaim an “Islamic Republic of Germany”.

Only a last, collective exertion of historic proportions can preserve Germany and Europe from a destructive civil war (the alternative for dissolution without a struggle).

I am therefore calling upon all freedom-conscious citizens to do everything to safeguard our magnificent continent against destruction. Show civil courage in personal discussions. Defend yourselves against the populistically motivated building of more Mosques by our mayors and politicians. Battle against special rights for Islam, which collectively contravene the provisions of Article 3 [Section 3] of the Constitution, which states:

“No person shall be favoured or disfavoured because of sex, parentage, race, language, homeland and origin, faith, or religious or political opinions. No person shall be disfavoured because of disability.” [Emphasis, Michael Mannheimer. Official translation of the Bundestag.]

I call especially upon the judges and attorneys to administer German justice again at last and to cease with “culturally sensitive” judgments, or the remission of indictments against foreigners who have violated German laws. Do not once again become part of the judge- and public prosecutor-sanctioned transformation of a liberal Germany into an unconstitutional state as under Hitler or Ulbricht. Show the juridical red card to the enemies of our liberal-democratic constitutional order. You have it in your power.

I call upon all police officers to make use of the Service Law [Dienstrecht] to proceed against superiors who turn a blind eye to crimes committed by foreigners, or who wish to induce you to look the other way.

A special appeal goes to the German soldiers, officers and generals: become aware of your special responsibility toward German history and the German people. You have sworn your oath, not to a particular politician, but to the Constitution of Germany. The German people, who in the twentieth century had to undergo difficult trials, trust in the loyalty of their soldiers, and they trust their soldiers to know where Germany’s enemies are to be found. Prove your historical responsibility when the time comes, and stand protectively before the German people — and not before their enemies. Refuse every command to fire when it is directed at Germans who wish nothing other than to fight in freedom and self-determination for their future.

I call upon all teachers and university lecturers to end the further propagation of the absurdity of a peaceful Islam and above all to end the spread of hostility toward Germans which is being pursued in the schools and universities. Our history is not reducible to the twelve years in which the Nazis dominated. Our people have produced in their over 2000 year history preeminent thinkers, engineers, scientists, philosophers, and artists.

And finally I call upon all those journalists, editors and chief editors who have preserved their decency and their love of truth, despite the terror of the left’s dictatorship of thought and values (Gesinnungsdiktatur), to finally report truthfully about Islam and the Left-driven abolition of Germany.

It was not the major events which helped the Nazis to power. They did not threaten any official with torture, prison or death if he did not join the party or if he should resist an unlawful directive from “above”. It was much simpler: they threatened with banalities such as career termination or transfer — little more. And this threat had such a prodigious effect that the power of the Nazis, whose control was by no means solid in the years immediately after their seizure of power, (newspapers wrote in 1933 of Hitler having presumably only a “short intermezzo”), only began to consolidate itself by the end of 1934 and the beginning of 1935 in such a way that it could ultimately become (total)itarian.

This consolidation was the result of single decisions multiplied a millionfold; decisions made by ordinary citizens, fellow travellers, and careerists of all professions. A millionfold, minuscule and apparently banal decisions in favour of their petty, personal happiness — but which in the end proved destructive for the freedom and peaceful future of Germany.

These fellow travellers are still with us today. Do not, like our forefathers in 1933, become victims of a petty bourgeois (even if understandable) anxiety about the loss of professional privileges or the threat of a career termination. Do not be a fellow traveller, who later has to deceive his children with “I knew nothing about all that“ or “I could do nothing about it“. Join in the resistance against the abolition of Germany by the Left and by the Islam which they have brought in — resist the abolition of the best and freest Germany in the turbulent history of our people.

Never forget that our still extant freedom was no gift from above, but was achieved with the active commitment and with the lives of countless people. It is in this spirit that I quote in conclusion a resistance fighter against the Hitler-regime, Graf von Stauffenberg, who immediately before his execution by firing squad burst out: “Long live our sacred Germany!“ [“Es lebe das heilige Deutschland!“].

Michael Mannheimer, April 2014

For links to previous articles by or about Michael Mannheimer, see the Michael Mannheimer Archives.

22 thoughts on “A Moral Duty to Join the Lawful Resistance

  1. I like Mannheimer’s call for the primacy of individual conscience, but I think that a mass of individual decisions will not be sufficient to turn the tide.

    The mass philosophies of socialism, Naziism, and communism, not to mention Islam, by their nature emphasize collective, group actions against the individual. In the end, it is the individual who loses, since he depends on his conscience, while the mass philosophies decline to engage until they have enough physical force to overwhelm any individual. When was any individual of conscience ever successful against Islam in a society dominated by Islamic law?

    Similarly, the White Rose, and the resistance within Germany to the Nazi government, while inspirational, were doomed to failure without the support of the Allies, who had their own problems with infiltration by socialists.

    Furthermore, if Germans happened to wrest their government forcibly from the socialists, it is likely that the other European countries would intervene militarily, probably with the support of the United States. This in fact happened in Serbia and Bosnia, where resistance to Muslim aggression was suppressed by US and Nato air power.

    The only solution to effective resistance I can think of is re-infiltration. If a communist can conceal himself and worm himself into a position of bureaucratic power, why not a true democrat (small d). Can we really win the battle of public opinion when a majority of the public is too apathetic, ignorant, or simply uneducated, to appreciate the issues or even care about issues? The left has coopted the levers of power to institute an illegal regime; why should democrats not co-opt power, not to illegally or violently suppress their opponents, but block their violence and suppression towards others? Perhaps we should have small, dedicated cells of schemers, supporting each other intellectually as they gain power and maintain their vision of a true republic, dedicated to law and individual rights.

  2. Excellent, but he short-charges history. The first attack of Socialism was with the 1919 Bavarian Soviet Republic and other commie upheavals in other parts of Germany. So this now is the fourth attack. And I don’t know how he can possibly say that this is the third attack of Islam as well. I don’t have the long list of the attacks at my fingertips, but I’ll eat my hat if this any less than the 7th attack of Islam on the European peoples — even on the periphery of modern Germany itself. Famously, Hilaire Belloc even lays the Christian schism of the Lutheran reformation at the feet of one such victorious attack by Islam, at Mohacs Field.

  3. A brilliant analysis of the underlying motive force behind the sick hatred of a patently successful civilization and the madness of mass immigration.

    One glimpse of a placard “Islam will dominate in ____” ought to be sufficient to send any Western patriot into a rage. That it does not bodes ill for any hope of a solution to the Islam problem. Ditto for the death toll of socialism.

    The Germans in France during WWII eventually retreated behind barbed wire as the French came to understand what they were about. At least then the French knew that Britain was in friendly hands and would render assistance.

    I am pessimistic that any will answer Mr. Mannerheimer’s call given the extreme reluctance of any European voters to support salvationist parties. Rather, they starve them of oxygen despite repeated, risk-free opportunities at the polls to do otherwise. These are not people with any “revolutionary consciousness” in them.

    It may be that economic upheaval will deprive the leftists of legitimacy and stimulate competition with the Islamics of a more vigorous kind.

    • In truth, it is socialism which is the opiate of the people, the thought of taking ‘responsibility’ is an anathema to most people, and the dangled carrot of “cradle to grave” welfare support is just too much for people to walk away from.

      A vote for a freedom party is essentially a risk too far for most, they are prepared to sacrifice much to maintain their welfare benefits. The collectivists can murder rape and pillage as much as they want as long as they only do it to groups already ‘demonized’ by the media, as long as people think “they will never come for me” then all is OK.

      Muslims can crucify Christians in Syria because it is a “small country, far away”. They can fire missiles at children here in Sderot and the Joe in the streets of the EU/USA is not interested, he is at no personal risk that he can perceive, they are just wogs and kikes….

      If a community, any community, is not prepared to fight for its integrity, then it deserves extinction, and if the enemy is within, then we have to purge that enemy as well.

      A cancer, eventually, has to be surgically removed, it is a bloody process, not for the feint of heart, but the longer it is delayed, the more dangerous the procedure. I live in Sderot on the front line, and here in Israel we have secure borders and a national identity in spite of world opinion and irrational joo-haters, and when we shoot, we shoot to kill.

      We have an enemy in the White House, we have enemies in Downing Street and in Brussels, we have Kerry trying to destroy us, ostensibly at the behest of “You the People”, We have Caroline Ashton openly supporting our enemies, supposedly with the full support of the peoples of Europe. US/EU taxpayers pay the salaries of those who murder our children, and we are supposed to smile and pretend to be blind. Those crucified Christians were murdered by US and EU paid Jihadists; the overthrow of Assad is worth the price of a few tortured souls apparently.

      Who are the bad guys now? think about it…..

  4. Europe I am afraid is finished….The UK especially, along with the Scandinavian lands.
    The British People are far too soft and brainwashed. My own idiot daughter aged 32, told me- a 61 years old man to “Grow up” and ignores me when I try to warn her and her brother of the future they face as “dhimmi”.

    I am the “silly old fool” on other occasions. My wife and I were even told that she was buying up the rest of our house and that we would be moved to an “annexe” while, she and her “partner” took the rest. Then she found she could not afford it so remains living with us. She is a typical product of her generation and we tried to raise here properly. She is now pregnant so guess who is going to look after her newborn while she pursues her “career”. The “partner” hasn’t even shown his face.

    I was informed I knew “Nothing about raising children”.

    I clean offices and houses as part of my Ministry for those that need such services. She “kindly” (in her opinion at least) informed me she had acquired a cleaning job for me and I was to “behave and keep my mouth shut”. When I gained another parish client she said it “Was a good career move”…..

    As I said she is typical of her brainwashed (I’m so clever) generation. Her personal habits are also questionable- food left in the sink, heating left on, fridges left open, dirty dishes and glasses left for days in her room that is never cleaned until I get in there. Bathroom in several tones of her makeup. Her own brother kicked her out after she went to stay with him after we had a row with myself. He came to the same conclusion as me…..

    No she is Ms Perfect. I am ignored. And I am far from alone. She is a typica Post Modern product of Progressive Britain. Selfish, arrogant, dismissive and full of her own Socialist Self Importance. Every family I know with daughters of similar age complain of the same type of behaviour from their’s too.

    Many of the fathers have high position like myself as an academic and Bishop. We are “tolerated”- pitied by the Great Ones.

    How on earth can the UK survive people like this?

    Strangely her brother refused to go to “UNI” and went into car sales instead. He now owns two houses, a mobile home and three cars. He is married too and highly responsible and even goes to Church. Maybe there is hope?

    • You are raising an important and sensitive point that few have tackled directly. The truth is that th Slow March has marched away with so many of our children, wives and other family members, particularly of the female persuasion. And there is no way to begin any resistive action, to hold on to any territory, except if one redefines family not by ties of blood but by ties of the spirit and the mind.

      I myself have not seen my son, a German commie, in 40 years, and I am happy with that. I refrained from producing other children as I did not have the life circumstances that would allow me to raise them in a bubble in order to protect them from the subversive toxins of school, peer opinion, pop culture and all media in general. There was a time when all these institutions were on the side of normal-minded parents. Now they work 100% against the parents.

      Matthew comes to mind:

      “Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” —Matthew 10:21-22

      “For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” —Matthew 10:35-39

  5. A solemn vowel can be a powerful thing, we saw it in the eyes of the men and women who faced down the trigger happy Feds at the Bundy Ranch.

  6. Refugees?
    Thousands of “asylum-seekers” from Turkey, Somalia, and so on, drawing welfare in Europe, return for visits to their country of origin. The Tsarnaev family migrated from Chechnya to USA as asylum seekers, yet they made periodic quite extended visits to Chechnya. The two sons were the Boston jihad bombers.
    Millions More Where These Came From
    The tainted compromised media obligingly call them “refugees” and “asylum seekers”. The continuous stream of Africans who swarm over the fence at Spain’s territories in North Africa, or swim round the jetty, or are trafficked into inadequate boats, are INVADERS. They are being admitted and then planted, as destructive invading agents, in European Communities, as in Bavaria, who pay for them.
    See “EU Nation-Breaking”
    and “Britain’s African Border – A Crisis Inflicted by the EU”

  7. “The primacy of individual conscience”. Philosophically speaking, this is a Kantian idea. Underlying it is the appearance of freedom, but in reality it expresses the isolation of the individual, which is exactly what happens in totalitarianism (i.e., the attack on the family). The radical, ethical isolation of the individual (without God) derives from Kant’s Practical Reason. It is the Enlightenment counterpart of the Protestant position of each individual alone before God. It is clear why “a mass of individual, “rational” decisions will not be sufficient to turn the tide.” It is a position of impotency. More importantly, there is no inner motive force.

    If one takes both of Mr. Mannheimer’s calls to resistance together, an underlying dichotomy appears. It is religion vs Enlightenment. But there is a nuance to this. Consider the first Call to Resistance, which is linked above, where Mr. Mannheimer says:

    “Now that even the Church is embracing Islam, the worst imaginable enemy of freedom, equality and brotherhood of all men, the last bastion of resistance against misanthropic Fascism has fallen to Islam.”

    We cannot tell whether Mr. Mannheimer means the Catholic Church, or the Church as a collective entity, but it matters little, for he is very well informed about what is happening in Germany, and we know that the Pope Francis himself is embracing Islam in dialogue instead of going out and preaching to all nations in the name of the Father etc. (cf. Evangelium Gaudium 252, 253, otherwise it is hard to even know where to start.). Pope Francis is not even a believer. Benedict XVI, was also a religous indifferentist, and he crumbled before Islam in the most humiliating manner after the Regensburg Address, kissing the Koran in his own way (see footnote 3 of the Regensburg address http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html).

    It is significant Mr. Mannheimer recognises that the Church was the last bastion of resistance against Islam, but he does not develop the idea. We need only think of concrete examples such as Pius V (the Holy League and the Battle of Lepanto in 1571), and even Pius II. Luther too inherited this almost instinctive knowledge of the dangers of Islam. How things have changed! It was not the Enlightenment which was present at the Gates of Vienna. Polish King, Jan Sobieski and his cavalry were not motivated by “freedom, equality and the brotherhood of all men”, although the Jacobins were, and so are the Communists. Freedom, equality and fraternity” is a revolutionary slogan. And now we know where pan-equality leads (ie., gender mainstreaming).

    What was common to the above mentioned victories over Islam was Christianity. It is the drying up of that Christianity which has left us defenceless. We lack instinct, as it were. Our river had dried up. Or in Mr. Mannheimer’s language, our immune system is gone. For him it is a political immune system, but he remains vague on this point. Our immune system is Christianity, which combined with our Greek heritage, gave us reason. We had both faith and reason. Now we have neither. To reduce Christianity to the inquisition and to the witch hunting insanity which broke out in Germany in the 15th century is an oversimplification and as such is itself a further attack on our own immune system, if one can even speak of its existence today.

    Underlying some of Mr. Mannheimer’s statements is the suggestion that when we emerged from Christianity, we emerged from something as bad as Islam. Now we are Enlightened, after the manner of Voltaire, who also attacked our immune system. Western culture and reason did not start with Kant in the 18th century, it ended with him. And both Socialism and Islam are the opportunistic infections following upon the waning of Christianity that made Kant possible. As for Islam, it is an instinct, it is whirlwind. Jung understood that.

    “The emotion (Gefühlswelt) in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with a wild god.” (Speaking of the National Socialist period. Collected Works, Bollingen. Vol. 18 p. 281)

    Hitler was Left. With Jung we can still ask whether Hitler has founded a new Islam (op. cit.).

    Enlightenment ideals are powerless against the wild god Allah. He unites the crowd. He is a collective god. On the other hand, Enlightenment by itself is dispersive, fragmenting, meaning it leads to ethical and cultural relativism, and is therefore one of our deepest problems. In the end, it is not reason which will resolve this.

    • So what will, Rembrandt? The Enlightenment was humanity’s coming to maturity at last: the opportunity to use the brains God (?) gave us, to think for ourselves, and it led to the abolition (largely) of slavery and emancipation of women (not to mention the US Constitution).

      Do you really want to turn this clock back? I rather like being a grownup at last, free to determine my own moral compass (always provided I don’t harm others), and decide how much, if anything, I take from the guidance offered by clerics- some of whom, and not only Muslims, would still like to turn me back into a child and dictate my behaviour.

      One specific point in Mr Mannheimer’s piece is contentious: drug gangs are hardly limited to Muslims- look at Latin (and indeed North) America.

      • I support Mark H in this. Conservatives of any stripe who see the Enlightenment as the beginning of our slide, see it for the opposite of what it was: a glorious culmination of our civilization’s rebirth, its Renaissance. Except at some point in mid-19th century all that lighting of dark corners and feeling smug about it went too far, and from then on its trajectory continued in the territory of diminishing and by new negative returns. The issue is therefore not whether the Enlightenment was good or bad, but at what point the good had become too much of a good thing.

        We are so programmed to think linearly (and are heirs to linear Christinity of Judaism) that we are unable to conceive of reality in a circular manner, wherein too much “good” is not better but worse, though accept that such a paradigm exists in eating ice cream, exercising the body, building tall skyscrapers, and so on.

        • Thanks, Takuan. I’m not saying that the current state of society in the “West” is ideal: there is too much self-indulgence and identity politics, but the solution is not to turn the clock back; the returning pendulum will, I suspect, do that without the oppressive “help” of sometimes bigoted, and power-hungry, believers of whatever faith.

          I’ve told this (apocryphal?) story before: in the 1960s a Communist Chinese leader was asked what he thought were the consequences of the French Revolution (itself a perverted offspring of the Enlightenment). He replied: “It’s too early to tell”.

          In Victorian Britain we were, at least in theory, more religious than today, but insofar as the statistics can be trusted, the crime rate was rather worse; it declined in the early c20th as secularism increased. Some wicked liberals might say that this was due to (mostly) increased prosperity, but I couldn’t possibly comment.

    • In modern times Judaism too has defeated the march of Islam, suitably hindered by the Western nations…..

      We are condemned because we are prepared to shoot back and make ‘disproportionate responses’ (whatever those are). We tolerate the Muslims in our society, but we do not love them or expect anything from them except treachery.

      For almost 100 years, any Jew finding his/herself at the mercy of Arabs/muslims has not survived, but has been insanely tortured and dismembered. We Learned fast the hard lesson of Islamic barbarism that the west has yet to learn.

      There was a time when Christians believed in a God – Yahovah, many still do, but most tend to believe in a ‘social’ gospel according to cultural Marxism, and are the first to welcome Islam into their community in the name of ecumenism and on the assumption that we all worship the same ‘god’ so it doesn’t matter anyway.

      Then they find that their ‘Christian love’ is not reciprocated and that their sons and their daughters have become targets. But then it is too late, the damage is done.

      • Indeed so, MC. “This animal (Israel) is vicious; when it is attacked, it defends itself”.

  8. Socialism is not at all the problem. Moar Socialism is the solution. Every German that is charged with “white privilege”, i.e. each non-Muslim, should get a guaranteed minimum income of, let us say, € 1500 each month.

    Also, removing the Muslims would deprive us of a living shield. It is also far too nice. We should take over countries currently Muslim, and “oppress” Muslims over there as well. Luckily, Islam destroys itself in Syria.

  9. Mother Nature setting us up again for another mother of all out of body experiences.

  10. What I don’t understand is why socialists don’t see the danger of Islam to themselves. It puzzles me exceedingly.

    • Peer pressure basically, they are affraid to lose their status, their friends, and their loved ones when they even consider the inconsiderable.

Comments are closed.