9 thoughts on “Michael Stürzenberger of the German party, Die Freiheit speaks on attitudes towards Germany by immigrants and even naturalized citizens.”
Europe is heading for big big trouble. This problem has reared its ugly head in every nation that is part of the European Union – is this a coincidence?
I have noticed over the weeks that the crowd has filled with lefties whistling and shouting. He is getting through and they don’t like it. Good man.
It seems more like fate than coincidence that so many things converge here. Germany is the center of gravity in the EU and Munich is a vital and indispensable crossroads. The city that saw so much of Hitler in his early days is now the target spot for a pan-European “Islamic Center” clearly meant as the base of operations for Islamism in Germany and Europe. It is being confronted by Michael Stürzenberger–a representative of the one party whose platform is overwhelmingly anti-Islamic, and by the most vociferous, and I would say eloquent speaker of that party, who has only recently co-founded a re-born White Rose, now intended to resist the plague of Leftist socialism and Islam as the original did Rightist socialism.
When Stürzenberger became the Freiheit chief for Munich and the Islamic center was proposed, it was like a collision of planets in an astrological chart. He has withstood increased heckling as well as physical assault and not stopped. He is able to roar along, loudly, extemporaneously and responsive to what is shouted at or done to him. He is now–I would say belatedly–recognized by the other side as the threat that he is.
I sooooo admire Stürzenberger for holding out in the face of so much more than we can probably even imagine. He is the proverbial David fighting a very very nasty Goliath (incidentally, the fact that he so openly sides with Israel does bring him some additional animosity). Here are just a few examples of the “stones” put in his way, as I understand:
He and his party are banned from many pubs/hotels in Munich. To meet in one’s Stammkneipe is an integral tradition especially in Bavaria. He is defamed in the media (even in the so-called conservative rags), he had his bank accounts closed down – the leftist, green and muslim thugs have now “discovered” the method of drowning his speeches out with whistles and screeching, while he has a court order on himself to not exceed a modest number of decibels (if that’s the word) and limit his speeches to max. 10 minutes. They spit on him, they throw “little” stones and other objects at him, they broke his reading glasses etc. etc. – yet he continues.
At the risk of sounding schmaltzy: For me he is a Hero.
I’m with you. He is indeed a hero.
It’s a sign of the times that those few who can be called Heroes and Heroines are the most vilified by the bought-and-paid-for jornolists who long ago sold out to the ruling cultural Marxists. Life is comfortable for them, even as they lie, omit, and avoid in order to kill the Truth.
Just imagine what it is like to stand in front of a crowd of hostile Muslims and “assorted Leftist thugs” to deliver that message. True courage.
Two matters stand out. The Nigerian Muslim woman, in Germany for 22 years, contends absurdly that Boko Haram are Christians. This is directly and specifically from the Joseph Goebbels playbook as cynically exhorting his “Big Lie” thesis. Say the big lie often enough and loudly enough and some people will believe it. Although Goebbels lent his undoubted immense talents to a nefarious cause he was, it is reluctantly but widely acknowledged, as THE pioneer of modern political campaigning.
The other matter is the “bludgeon refrain” used against Sturzenberger: “Never Again Germany”. How gallingly offensive it is that Islamists and their brainless Leftist thug agitators use that refrain to try to silence Sturzenberger. Apart from reminding me of the “5 Minutes of Hate” in 1984 where the masses would be stirred into paroxysms of misdirected emotional release through public screaming at screen-projected images of the despised “Goldstein” – Orwell was very prescient – the misappropriation of “Never Again” by people who couldn’t give a rat’s a*** about the Holocaust is disgusting beyond belief. Rather, a very large proportion of Sturzenberger antagonists would just luurrve a second, but spatially different, Holocaust to take place as it is those very same people who will be and are found at rallies and demonstrations hysterically screeching about the evils of the “Zionist entity” and cheering on its destruction. In setting “Goldstein” up as the hate-magnet of the future, Orwell, understandably because Israel didn’t exist at the time of writing, was ever so slightly off: the “Goldstein” of our real post 1984 era is Israel. Naturally Sturzenberger is an outspoken supporter of Israel, as he like many well understand Israel is the front line in the defence of the West against the barbarous forces of Islamification as are Jews the canary in the coalmine.
That’s brilliant, Julius; I’d noted that “Goldstein” was a Jewish name, but not though through the implications for postwar politics.
Orwell referred to Britain as “Airstrip One”, evidently a reference to the “floating aircraft carrier” which launched waves of RAF and USAAF bombers against the Reich. Now I know that we Brits can become misty-eyed with nostalgia about our “finest hour”, when we did stand alone against the Nazis, but it seems we were more right than we knew at the time.
In 1945 the Soviets captured a senior German general (I believe von Runstedt), and asked which he though was the most critical battle of the European war, likely expecting him to cite Stalingrad or Kursk. He said it was the Battle of Britain, because our defeat of the Luftwaffe, indefinitely postponing the planned German invasion, left Britain as a base for the Allied bomber fleets AND propelled Hitler into attacking the Soviet Union in 1941, two years earlier than he’d intended.
Thank you. Orwell’s Goldstein was in large measure a take on the person of Trotsky and by extension the phenomenon of Trotskyites. There was an almost inexplicably virulent hatred and persecution of “Trotskyites” real and imagined in the Soviet purges of the 1930’s and after.
Orwell was himself a Trotskyite and volunteered to fight in the Spanish Civil War for the Trotskyist POUM against the Francoist Nationalists. It was the widespread and systematic behind the lines murders of leading POUMistas by their Soviet-directed fellow “Republican” Stalinist Communists that politically disillusioned Orwell forever.
There was a wider subtext to “anti-Trotskyism”: all the senior Jewish Bolsheviks around Lenin were progressively “purged” after his death, often in show trials: most prominently Kamenev and Zinoviev, then Genrikh Yagoda (Secret Police Chief 1933-1937) as well as all Jewish senior Red Army commanders and then tens of thousands of lower level Jewish apparatchiks. At Politburo level only Lazar Kaganovich (who had rigged Stalin’s re-election as General Secretary against Kirov in 1932) survived, his Commissar brother, Mikhail, was purged, as the token Jew until 1955 and thereafter there were none.
The anti-Jewish subtext to “anti-Trotskyism” was recognised by the astute political operators and generally covert but sometimes overt anti-Semitic apparatchiks rose to prominence and into the Politburo: Khruschev, Zhadanov (who led the post World War 2 campaign against “rootless cosmopolitans” – a euphemism for Jews before “Zionists” gained traction), Shcherbakov and the eminence grise Suslov.
Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt may well have stated what you cite, but it was not to the Soviets. Field Marshal Erich von Manstein (author of Operation Sicklestroke which knocked Belgium and France out of the war), however, in his memoirs attributes the loss of WW2 to Hitler’s failure to exploit the Wehrmacht’s advantage at Dunkirk by firstly not destroying the BEF pocket (and thereby not permitting 335,000 British, Belgian and French troops to escape) and then secondly not immediately launching an invasion of Britain – the Royal Navy and RAF were still strong at the time of Dunkirk but the British Army was in tatters. Manstein ran the numbers and calculated that only a relatively small invasion force need have made it to English shores – he postulated there would be highish German casualties during the seaborne phase – and thus negated the naval superiority and air parity of Britain.
Manstein identified specifically the consequences that you have particularized. With Britain out of the picture, hence no threat of a dreaded two-front war, Hitler could have turned on the Soviet Union at his leisure. With Britain staying in as “Airstrip One” and the regional Anglo-American naval base it all turned out very differently.
Britain should be eternally grateful that Hitler ignored the non-political Manstein and preferred the self-aggrandizing and erroneous advice of his designated political heir and Luftwaffe commander Goering – who was high on morphine throughout the war. Note that it was again the acceptance of Goering’s self-aggrandizing and erroneous advice in December 42-January 43 – that his Luftwaffe could supply by air the encircled 6th Army at Stalingrad – that cost the Germans their biggest setback on the Eastern Front.
Thanks Julius; I was recollecting a historian speaking about the Battle of Britain on tv some years back, so may well have got the wrong Nazi commander; indeed I also forgot to refer to his quoting the huge importance of Britain as a platform for the D-Day invasion.
Goering was indeed a liability (as was Hitler himself); when the US came into the war, someone pointed out that this would bring the Americans’ capacity for mass production to bear; he said “They only know how to make cars and refrigerators”, apparently unaware that “Rosie the Riveter” and her co-workers would make munitions in those same factories.
Between 1939-45, around 630,000 military aircraft were made worldwide: 300,000 in the US! Goering did later admit that when he saw enemy fighters over Berlin (British-based, US long-range bomber escorts in early 1944), he knew the war was lost.
Europe is heading for big big trouble. This problem has reared its ugly head in every nation that is part of the European Union – is this a coincidence?
I have noticed over the weeks that the crowd has filled with lefties whistling and shouting. He is getting through and they don’t like it. Good man.
It seems more like fate than coincidence that so many things converge here. Germany is the center of gravity in the EU and Munich is a vital and indispensable crossroads. The city that saw so much of Hitler in his early days is now the target spot for a pan-European “Islamic Center” clearly meant as the base of operations for Islamism in Germany and Europe. It is being confronted by Michael Stürzenberger–a representative of the one party whose platform is overwhelmingly anti-Islamic, and by the most vociferous, and I would say eloquent speaker of that party, who has only recently co-founded a re-born White Rose, now intended to resist the plague of Leftist socialism and Islam as the original did Rightist socialism.
When Stürzenberger became the Freiheit chief for Munich and the Islamic center was proposed, it was like a collision of planets in an astrological chart. He has withstood increased heckling as well as physical assault and not stopped. He is able to roar along, loudly, extemporaneously and responsive to what is shouted at or done to him. He is now–I would say belatedly–recognized by the other side as the threat that he is.
I sooooo admire Stürzenberger for holding out in the face of so much more than we can probably even imagine. He is the proverbial David fighting a very very nasty Goliath (incidentally, the fact that he so openly sides with Israel does bring him some additional animosity). Here are just a few examples of the “stones” put in his way, as I understand:
He and his party are banned from many pubs/hotels in Munich. To meet in one’s Stammkneipe is an integral tradition especially in Bavaria. He is defamed in the media (even in the so-called conservative rags), he had his bank accounts closed down – the leftist, green and muslim thugs have now “discovered” the method of drowning his speeches out with whistles and screeching, while he has a court order on himself to not exceed a modest number of decibels (if that’s the word) and limit his speeches to max. 10 minutes. They spit on him, they throw “little” stones and other objects at him, they broke his reading glasses etc. etc. – yet he continues.
At the risk of sounding schmaltzy: For me he is a Hero.
I’m with you. He is indeed a hero.
It’s a sign of the times that those few who can be called Heroes and Heroines are the most vilified by the bought-and-paid-for jornolists who long ago sold out to the ruling cultural Marxists. Life is comfortable for them, even as they lie, omit, and avoid in order to kill the Truth.
Just imagine what it is like to stand in front of a crowd of hostile Muslims and “assorted Leftist thugs” to deliver that message. True courage.
Two matters stand out. The Nigerian Muslim woman, in Germany for 22 years, contends absurdly that Boko Haram are Christians. This is directly and specifically from the Joseph Goebbels playbook as cynically exhorting his “Big Lie” thesis. Say the big lie often enough and loudly enough and some people will believe it. Although Goebbels lent his undoubted immense talents to a nefarious cause he was, it is reluctantly but widely acknowledged, as THE pioneer of modern political campaigning.
The other matter is the “bludgeon refrain” used against Sturzenberger: “Never Again Germany”. How gallingly offensive it is that Islamists and their brainless Leftist thug agitators use that refrain to try to silence Sturzenberger. Apart from reminding me of the “5 Minutes of Hate” in 1984 where the masses would be stirred into paroxysms of misdirected emotional release through public screaming at screen-projected images of the despised “Goldstein” – Orwell was very prescient – the misappropriation of “Never Again” by people who couldn’t give a rat’s a*** about the Holocaust is disgusting beyond belief. Rather, a very large proportion of Sturzenberger antagonists would just luurrve a second, but spatially different, Holocaust to take place as it is those very same people who will be and are found at rallies and demonstrations hysterically screeching about the evils of the “Zionist entity” and cheering on its destruction. In setting “Goldstein” up as the hate-magnet of the future, Orwell, understandably because Israel didn’t exist at the time of writing, was ever so slightly off: the “Goldstein” of our real post 1984 era is Israel. Naturally Sturzenberger is an outspoken supporter of Israel, as he like many well understand Israel is the front line in the defence of the West against the barbarous forces of Islamification as are Jews the canary in the coalmine.
That’s brilliant, Julius; I’d noted that “Goldstein” was a Jewish name, but not though through the implications for postwar politics.
Orwell referred to Britain as “Airstrip One”, evidently a reference to the “floating aircraft carrier” which launched waves of RAF and USAAF bombers against the Reich. Now I know that we Brits can become misty-eyed with nostalgia about our “finest hour”, when we did stand alone against the Nazis, but it seems we were more right than we knew at the time.
In 1945 the Soviets captured a senior German general (I believe von Runstedt), and asked which he though was the most critical battle of the European war, likely expecting him to cite Stalingrad or Kursk. He said it was the Battle of Britain, because our defeat of the Luftwaffe, indefinitely postponing the planned German invasion, left Britain as a base for the Allied bomber fleets AND propelled Hitler into attacking the Soviet Union in 1941, two years earlier than he’d intended.
Thank you. Orwell’s Goldstein was in large measure a take on the person of Trotsky and by extension the phenomenon of Trotskyites. There was an almost inexplicably virulent hatred and persecution of “Trotskyites” real and imagined in the Soviet purges of the 1930’s and after.
Orwell was himself a Trotskyite and volunteered to fight in the Spanish Civil War for the Trotskyist POUM against the Francoist Nationalists. It was the widespread and systematic behind the lines murders of leading POUMistas by their Soviet-directed fellow “Republican” Stalinist Communists that politically disillusioned Orwell forever.
There was a wider subtext to “anti-Trotskyism”: all the senior Jewish Bolsheviks around Lenin were progressively “purged” after his death, often in show trials: most prominently Kamenev and Zinoviev, then Genrikh Yagoda (Secret Police Chief 1933-1937) as well as all Jewish senior Red Army commanders and then tens of thousands of lower level Jewish apparatchiks. At Politburo level only Lazar Kaganovich (who had rigged Stalin’s re-election as General Secretary against Kirov in 1932) survived, his Commissar brother, Mikhail, was purged, as the token Jew until 1955 and thereafter there were none.
The anti-Jewish subtext to “anti-Trotskyism” was recognised by the astute political operators and generally covert but sometimes overt anti-Semitic apparatchiks rose to prominence and into the Politburo: Khruschev, Zhadanov (who led the post World War 2 campaign against “rootless cosmopolitans” – a euphemism for Jews before “Zionists” gained traction), Shcherbakov and the eminence grise Suslov.
Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt may well have stated what you cite, but it was not to the Soviets. Field Marshal Erich von Manstein (author of Operation Sicklestroke which knocked Belgium and France out of the war), however, in his memoirs attributes the loss of WW2 to Hitler’s failure to exploit the Wehrmacht’s advantage at Dunkirk by firstly not destroying the BEF pocket (and thereby not permitting 335,000 British, Belgian and French troops to escape) and then secondly not immediately launching an invasion of Britain – the Royal Navy and RAF were still strong at the time of Dunkirk but the British Army was in tatters. Manstein ran the numbers and calculated that only a relatively small invasion force need have made it to English shores – he postulated there would be highish German casualties during the seaborne phase – and thus negated the naval superiority and air parity of Britain.
Manstein identified specifically the consequences that you have particularized. With Britain out of the picture, hence no threat of a dreaded two-front war, Hitler could have turned on the Soviet Union at his leisure. With Britain staying in as “Airstrip One” and the regional Anglo-American naval base it all turned out very differently.
Britain should be eternally grateful that Hitler ignored the non-political Manstein and preferred the self-aggrandizing and erroneous advice of his designated political heir and Luftwaffe commander Goering – who was high on morphine throughout the war. Note that it was again the acceptance of Goering’s self-aggrandizing and erroneous advice in December 42-January 43 – that his Luftwaffe could supply by air the encircled 6th Army at Stalingrad – that cost the Germans their biggest setback on the Eastern Front.
Thanks Julius; I was recollecting a historian speaking about the Battle of Britain on tv some years back, so may well have got the wrong Nazi commander; indeed I also forgot to refer to his quoting the huge importance of Britain as a platform for the D-Day invasion.
Goering was indeed a liability (as was Hitler himself); when the US came into the war, someone pointed out that this would bring the Americans’ capacity for mass production to bear; he said “They only know how to make cars and refrigerators”, apparently unaware that “Rosie the Riveter” and her co-workers would make munitions in those same factories.
Between 1939-45, around 630,000 military aircraft were made worldwide: 300,000 in the US! Goering did later admit that when he saw enemy fighters over Berlin (British-based, US long-range bomber escorts in early 1944), he knew the war was lost.