The post below is a fitting follow-up to the video of Tommy Robinson’s appearance at a PEGIDA event in Utrecht.

Rembrandt Clancy has translated a batch of material about Götz Kubitschek, a popular speaker at PEGIDA and LEGIDA (the Leipzig branch of PEGIDA) events. The translator includes a subtitled video of Mr. Kubitschek’s speech a week ago in Dresden, in which he called his fellow citizens to civil disobedience for the purpose of securing Germany’s borders.

A Call to Civil Disobedience

“This policy, for which Berlin, the federal government, is responsible, is directed immediately against our people, and it is breathtaking how swiftly and thoroughly our government is keen to ensure that this people do not recognise who they are.”

Götz Kubitschek
5 October 2015,
PEGIDA Demonstration in Dresden

Introduction
by Rembrandt Clancy

Below is the video and English transcript of the speech Götz Kubitschek delivered on Monday, 5 October 2015 at the PEGIDA demonstration in Dresden. It is now a year since the Pegida demonstrations began; Monday’s event is said to have numbered at least 15,000 participants.

We introduce the video with a translation of Mr. Kubitschek’s commentary on his own speech. It takes the form of an interview which the speaker conducts with himself to explain the concepts behind the call to civil disobedience he had made two days earlier. It has been slightly abridged here so as to highlight those remarks most pertinent to the content of Mr. Kubitschek’s speech.

For background on the speaker, please consult the section “About the Speaker” in the article “Our Population Must Not be Replaced” at Gates of Vienna.

The Greater and Lesser Orders — Götz Kubitschek on His Pegida Speech

Source: Sezsession
Date: Wednesday, 7 October 2015

[. . .]

KUBITSCHEK: . . . To the point: What did you say in Dresden on Monday? [. . .]

KUBITSCHEK: . . . Abbreviated version: I pose the question, what are our permissible limits when it is a question of putting an end to violation of existing law through state authority itself and when it comes down to ending government failure per se? Classical international law defines the state according to just three criteria: 1. the totality of the citizenry, 2. national territory and 3., authority of the state. The totality of the citizenry (we Germans in this case) occupy national territory (which the Kurds, for example, do not have) for the purpose realising their way of life; and the citizenry have ceded a monopoly on the use of force to the power of the state; externally, to protect against foreign incursion; and domestically, for protection against criminality. Now I take note of two different factors: to begin with, our government, the bearer of state authority, is threatening us, the totality of the citizenry, through mass immigration without criteria. The state is permitting that its monopoly on external force be no longer seen to exist; that is, the its will to secure the borders and prevent illegal immigration is no longer to hand. The government is thereby exposing our people to an increasing danger domestically.

KUBITSCHEK: Does it not suffice, in view of this manifest situation, to call upon the state to remember its duty and carry out its state functions?

KUBITSCHEK: This appeal has been dying away for months. I recall, that it was for precisely this reason that PEGIDA was founded almost exactly one year ago, to appeal to politicians regarding the necessity of putting an end to the immigration of radicals. But for all the appealing and walking [PEGIDA “walks”], not much was addressed politically; on the contrary, the opened floodgates became a bursting dam.

KUBITSCHEK: And now? What should happen now?

KUBITSCHEK: On Monday, I spoke of three forms of resistance and thereby moved the core significance of Pegida upwards: Of course there must be demonstrations everywhere; they are taking place for sure, and the people are coming in throngs. But at the same time, day after day, those too come in throngs, who have no place in our country and who cannot even produce grounds for asylum. They are arriving from safe third countries; they have overwhelmed the external borders of the EU; they are shamelessly exploiting Europe’s lack of borders and they are forcing their way into our country illegally by the hundreds of thousands. And now the question arises: if the government will not, or cannot secure our borders any longer, then is it not legitimate for us to help them do so, or take cognizance of their unwillingness and provide a substitute? That is the argumentation behind my appeal: to disrupt the lesser order (for example, blockading a border crossing) so as to defend the greater order (our statehood and the fundamental pillars of our system of laws). A minor infringement does not cause the state to founder, this is especially the case if it is committed in order to support the tottering foundational pillars of the state.

KUBITSCHEK: But who decides when the legitimate limits of this civil resistance has been reached?

KUBITSCHEK: In my speech, I emphasised several times, firmly, and in two detailed passages at the end, the peaceableness of each of our forms of resistance. These statements can be located in the video from roughly the 15 minute mark to approximately 17:00. It is the peaceableness of the protests which constitutes the limit. Violence does not originate from Pegida, and certainly not at all from my own intellectual projects. And I was able to observe once again on Monday, that in a line kilometres long, no policeman was required for the security of demonstrators; only at the intersection did a few policemen control the traffic; and when a few dozen leftist troublemakers surfaced, the police stood — as always — with their backs to us, knowing that they had nothing to fear on our account. And that is how it should remain, but the framework must now be broadened: peaceful infractions, peaceful breaches of the rules — these expressions, perhaps, might be quite useful.

[. . .]

Speech in Dresden by Götz Kubitschek

PEGIDA, 5 October 2015

Original German-Language Video Source: AufbruchVideos

Good evening Dresden! I am pleased to be here.

Last winter I spoke several times here in Dresden, the most recent being in April, on “An der Flutrinne” [street], when Geert Wilders was on a visit from Holland. We need not waste words on how the situation has developed since then: Everyone knows what it means, knows the numbers and looks with horror at a policy directed against our people and against the other peoples of Europe.

This policy for which Berlin, the federal government, is responsible, is directed immediately against our people; and it is breathtaking how swiftly and thoroughly our government is keen to ensure that this people do not recognise who they are. Angela Merkel, Joachim Gauck and others with political responsibility have made a suction bell out of Germany: this suction draws across Europe, not only those who are truly in political distress, but most notably countless gold-diggers, who know one thing: in order to dig up treasure, there is no longer any need in Germany for a pickaxe and a shove. It is enough to know where to find the next social welfare office.

I am basically grateful to the political leaders of our country, that they are now so recklessly and openly pursing the dissolution of our lawful order and flooding the Eastern states, too, with foreigners. This process has been proceeding in the West [of Germany] like an imperceptibly advancing fever; and now finally, this wretched mixture of inner weakness and external threat is coming to light. It is good that it is now crashing! In preference to this imperceptibly advancing fever, an open flesh wound is better for us. Only in this way will the horror of it penetrate this country to the bone.

The initial shock paralysis is now over; the catastrophe is visible in its epochal dimension. Our country is spiralling into unrest and soon perhaps into turmoil; and it is not only our right, but at the same time our duty to resist the failure of our government and the dissolution of our people. What must this resistance look like? Three points:

The first form of opposition: demonstration.

In the past week, demonstrations took place

• on Monday in Dresden with over 15,000 walkers; I say “here here”! — unsurpassed!
• on Wednesday, in Erfurt, with 8,000 participants; it is about to happen again there the day after tomorrow.
• in Leipzig with 1,000 people,
• in Sebnitz with the concept of ‘living borders’ and 3,000 participants
• in Plauen with 5,000 demonstrators and in Görlitz with over 1,000 participants,
• and today is Dresden again reliably in the five digit range, and perhaps even with a “2” right in front of it!

I am convinced, that for the first time, hundreds of guests are also here today from the West. A warm welcome to you from the capital of resistance! And to our guests from the West: take strength and confidence home with your to your outposts of provincial resistance: — to Frankfurt, to Cologne, to Hamburg and Mannheim, to Essen and Bonn. And now — this not a prognosis — but I am convinced that by the end of this year, we are going to see 100,000 participants on the street — if not here in Dresden, then perhaps in Berlin!

The second form of opposition: securing the border.

Since early this morning, information has been emerging about a new, internal forecast put out by the federal authorities: It is estimated that alone in this year, there will have been 1.5 million immigrants. Of these, about 3/4 are young men, around half of them Moslems, more than a third of them are unregistered, and a considerable percentage go underground — that means, either they never arrive at the designated receiving locations or they disappear after having been there.

Every single one of these numbers proves the failure of our government; every single one of these numbers proves, that on the borders of our country and within, the principles of statehood no longer apply.

On the great political questions of state policy, and issues of the rule of law, we should always argue cautiously and not dramatise. But do we dramatise, when we say that this country is no longer in the position to secure her borders? This government is no longer capable of enforcing law and order. And if, however, they were still in the position of enforcing it, they clearly no longer wish to do their duty.

Nonetheless, whether they no longer can or whether they no longer will, they must. We require that of them, — that is the minimum. And it is not just my view, that it is legitimate to give the government a hand in this task. Yesterday in Sebnitz, 3,000 people gathered to form a living border. Lutz Bachmann and Tatjana Festerling were also there; — and such symbolic actions are a first step.

In Austria, the local Identitaire movement is implementing two projects, which are already much less than symbolic. With the campaign “Become Border Auxiliaries” [“Werde Grenzhelfer“] they are calling upon countrymen, who are good with their hands, to begin building border fences everywhere on their own initiative and with the awareness that by so doing they are committing at least a minor public order infraction. Likewise, the second action of the Austrians is quite certainly an infraction against the public order. With thirty activists the group temporarily blocked a border crossing for at least two hours.

Could we not do that too? — Block borders in order to prevent mass illegal immigration? The question is: to which public order infraction are we disposed to undertake, when it comes to defending our legal system and when it comes down to a defence of the fundamental principles of our statehood?

To this context belongs also the third form of opposition: the blockade. We can look at the blockade currently underway in Dresden’s Übigau district, and in the Chemnitz district of Einsiedel, as a form of civil disobedience. In both cases, the residents are blockading access roads to the planned asylum shelters. The same question arises as with the border blockades: how far may we go in preventing what the state should not have permitted at all? To what extent are we empowered to get the state to move? I cannot answer this question as a legal expert, but only with a sense of justice tutored by common sense. There are times when it is legitimate to take action over and above the existing laws; namely, when the legal order itself is unravelling.

I believe this is the case and I am prepared to engage in civil disobedience. I consider it necessary to act in accordance with the concept of the state, and against the concrete reality of the state.

In order to clarify this decision, I wish to tell a short story. It comes from Michael Ende, the author of books for children and young adults. Everyone knows his books: Jim Knopf and The Locomotive Engineer or Momo or, his most famous, The Neverending Story. That Michael Ende also wrote short stories for adults has remained relatively unknown. I relate one of them now.

It treats of a young man who, after a long period of preparation, stands before his final test. He does not know what kind of a task it will be, nor does he know how he will solve it. He only knows that he will have to have completed the task before evening and then he will be given over to freedom and happiness. He sleeps restlessly into the critical day of the test, rises early and steps out onto the street, dressed only in a long fishnet. He walks through the city, not knowing exactly whereto, and then notices his fishnet is becoming heavier, for the people are throwing all kinds of things into it from their houses, and always, whenever the young man quizzically raises his head, he receives the answer: “If anyone one can manage it, you can.” And he understands his task: to drag the net with all its trash through the streets until evening.

Then comes evening, and dripping with sweat the young man looks far in the distance, and sees how the other candidates are honoured and released into freedom. Only him, had they apparently forgotten. And suddenly it dawned on him: his task was to throw off this net with its restraining trash, and being free of it, do the right thing.

Do I still have to draw a comparison with our situation? Throw off the net! We must be free to do the right thing. There are three questions pertaining to this:

• Are we prepared to undertake civil disobedience in order to defend the idea of our state?
• Are we prepared, in a peaceful way, to act contrary to a lesser order so as to protect the larger order?
• Are we prepared to persevere for a day, a night, a week, here in this plaza for example, or somewhere else, to show that day-to-day life is no longer so important if our country is falling apart at the seams? Are we prepared for it?

I am convinced that we must so act, in an absolutely peaceful way, in consideration of all conceivable possibilities and ideas for civil resistance. We must so act, because the politicians are not prepared to preserve our country from disintegration. One point is to be emphasised, which in the final analysis is very important to me in this situation; so important, that I call upon all of us to a distancing of ourselves, which I otherwise never do. All of us here today must distance ourselves from those who demand violent uprising or who are intoxicated with taking up arms.

I urgently implore you: refuse such demands! Order such agitators to be quiet! Lunatics and provocateurs have nothing to say to us! Our resistance is peaceful. It has always been that way; the police, the politicians and the media know that; anyone who has been present here even once knows that. And it belongs to the tradition of 1989 to implement urgently necessary policy change peacefully.

Our aim, to be exact, has been nothing other than a change in policy, first and foremost; a peaceful, fundamental securement of our statehood. Everything else follows from that. This is a gargantuan task, but now when I look across the square and see no end of it, then I am confident that everyone, after taking the first step, is now capable of taking the second, the third and the fifth step of resistance against the destruction of our way of life; and these steps will not be in vain.

Our situation defies any calculation: none of us knows what will happen in two, five or in ten weeks and what the tasks will entail in concrete terms for each of us. Therefore I cannot offer any prognosis, but one thing I know for sure, and after tonight more than ever: our people are by no means finished. And all of us in the coming months will come to experience how much strength to resist remains to this people!

Thank you! And I am certain we’ll be back again!

For links to previous articles about PEGIDA (Patriotische Europäer Gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes, Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West) and related movements, see the PEGIDA Archives.