The Grotesquely Overbred EU

This sardonic look at the current near-death condition of the European Union was originally published in the Preußische Allgemeine Zeitung. Many thanks to JLH for the translation:

The Week in Review with Hans Heckel
December 5, 2015


(How the EU Became a Fat, Greedy Monster, Why That Bothers No One and How Anti-Racists Extinguish Entire Peoples)

At first, there were only wolves. Then human beings refined this grey race into an incalculable multiplicity of dog races. Some cute, some elegant, some threatening, and others just weird. The breeders have a right to be proud. But there are also black sheep among them, who have bred in certain characteristics so strongly that the result was a miserable creature that either sickened and died young or suffered its entire life from defective joints, torturous breathing problems or fragile organs. These poor creatures are basically unfit to live.

Breeders conscious of their responsibility are on the lookout to stop the fanatics in their guild or, if still possible, to correct their mistakes.

One might wish for that kind of responsible individual in the field of politics and ideology. Here too, there are absurd over-refinements, no less grotesque than the pitiable creations of whacked out dog breeders. The results of fanatical political and ideological breeders are just as unfit to survive as those of like-minded animal breeders.

The European Union offers us a particularly bizarre example. The history of its forebears stretches back into the time between the two World Wars. At that time the politicians, Gustav Stresemann (Germany) and Aristide Briand (France), established the genetics of the community. It was the recognition that peace in Europe was only lastingly possible if the peoples — beginning with the Germans and French — develop a common whole.

There have been further refinements since then — unfortunately not always with the best intentions, and with ever more remarkable results. The added bonus after WWII was that the community would in all secrecy pursue the goal of putting Germany on a short leash. Since then, hidden under the shiny coat of harmony lay the toxin of betrayal like an evil tumor. The “breeders” continued to work enthusiastically, and from generation to generation their creation grew and grew, until at last a fat, greedy monster rolled out of the incubator, sclerotic and barely capable of moving. That is the EU that was born in 1992 as the successor to the old Common Market. And so the monster has wallowed through time, gobbling up countries, money, and skills — whatever it could get its paws on. It could not do any different. Its breeders had already set its nature before its birth in Maastricht.

But now, the poor critter staggers and weakens as if it were about to topple into the morass of history at any moment. What are the breeders doing? Wise medical people suggest a proper diet for purging and purifying. But wise medical people were long since banished from the court as “enemies of Europe.”

As early as next year, one of its largest organs could rot and fall off. Great Britain — the second strongest economic power of the EU, is facing a plebiscite which, from the look of things, may lead to the exit of the British from the Union. Simultaneously, we hear that Brussels intends to re-open the application process for Turkey to join the EU.

It is as if someone sawed a leg off this already weakened, genetically ailing animal, and then immediately strapped a heavy pack on its back. Under civil law, perverts who did something like this would be hauled into court. This horrific act, however, will probably result in the Charlemagne Prize.

The Germans are not much disturbed by all that, because they hardly notice it anymore. Ten or twenty years ago, the drama of Britain’s mortally endangered EU membership would have caused spasms of panic here. Week after week, print and electronic media would have been full of the newest polls from the Island. And every Tom, Dick and Harry would have contributed his two cents to debating the red-hot question, “Is the EU disintegrating?!” And now, no one here gives a hoot that Finland’s referendum on leaving the euro has cleared its second hurdle. Like someone undergoing a “near-death experience,” the EU — viewing the bright light of life’s end — sees its own life pass before it. It invokes the “great peace achievement,” it admires the long-dissipated youthful exuberance of the “Europe movement” and the Germans are there in spirit, also being astounded, instead of worrying about the condition of the EU.

Perhaps our dozy complacency comes from the fact that our thoughts are no less overbred than the pathetic EU. As noted above, in the realm of ideology too, grotesque overbreeding runs rampant.

There was once a time when people’s thoughts were full of racist trash. That was bred out of them. Unfortunately, there was not a timely end put to outbreeding. By now, we have degenerated to the point where even the mention of differences and unique characteristics of certain peoples and cultures causes palpitations among the so-called “anti-racists.”

The author Rolf Bauerdick has worked that out by means of “Anti-Ziganism[1] Research”. “Anti-Ziganism researchers” are people who claim they can “scientifically” explicate racism against gypsies.

They have gone further and further with it. Ultimately, they have revealed that all the positive observations about gypsies — the much extolled Gypsy Romanticism, for example — are variations on racism. In the end, as Bauerndick soberly determines, there remains a “people without characteristics.” Only the fact that they are discriminated against is a collective characteristic — the Anti-Ziganism researchers consider that valid, but nothing else, whether (“apparently”) good or (“clearly”) bad, because they are all racist generalizations.

A classic case of ideological over-refinement. In their mania for purity, the battlers against hostility to gypsies have actually extinguished the gypsies as a recognizable group. OK, you can do that, since, where there are no gypsies, anti-gypsyism has lost its point But that’s a little sick, right?

With the mass immigration of these days, we are falling for our own overbred ideology. So as not to be racists, we believe neither what we see every day nor what we actually know. The majority of the feminine portion of this flood of asylum seekers lets it be known by their headgear what they probably think of the role of the woman as a real-world oriented, self-determined creature. At least we suspect that, but would die before allowing that to enter our thoughts. Instead, we convince ourselves that incubating under the headscarf is the future strong-willed head physician, successful entrepreneur or feminist journalist.

Anyone who sees it otherwise is a racist and is “fanning fears.” Fears — of what? Presumably that our undistorted common sense will tunnel upward and open our eyes. In that case, a rude awakening awaits us.

Terrible. So maybe it’s better to keep napping and enjoying the skewed contortions of our overbred anti-racism, which forbids us from speaking of “foreign cultures which are hard to reconcile with our own cultures.” At least until someone brutally yanks us sleepyheads into the Here and Now. That someone answers to the name of Reality.

1.   Using the first syllable of “Zigeuner” = gypsy = Sinti and Roma.

9 thoughts on “The Grotesquely Overbred EU

  1. I am not sure which is worse -Angela Merkel or I.s.i.s .But I do know that Merkel is enablings I.S.I.S .
    Merkel tells Europe when to jump ,how high to jump and Europe meekly obeys.If Europe is to have any chance of survival the E.U must break up as a matter of urgency.

  2. The last time England/Great Britain was involved really heavily on the continent was during the 100 Year’s War in the 14th century. Since then, they have preferred to keep (the rest of) Europe at arms’ length, even during large scale operations such as the Marlburian wars, Napoleonic wars or WW I, the vast majority of soldiers under British command on the continent weren’t actually from the British Isles.
    For hundreds of years, ever since England started to become a major power right around the 16th century, their primary objective has been to prevent France, Germany and Russia from becoming to powerful.
    France isn’t likely to become a threat again any time soon – unless it very quickly becomes an aggressive Caliphate, which Mesdames Le Pen can hopefully just barely prevent – Germany is busily cutting its’ own throat with the help of Frau Merkel’s transferred guilt complexes (and probably some substantial financial contributions from the House of Saud), which leaves Russia, where the little baldy guy is sending out his operatives to search worldwide for any surviving Romanov heirs to install on the throne of a renewed Czarist Empire stretching from the Pacific to the Danube, with himself as the Chief Advisor……
    Not sure if the current British leadership has noticed that the Union Jack can no longer be flown so as not to offend anyone, that English girls are being sharia’ed by the scores, or that (unarmed….) British police dare not go into about half the neighborhoods they are supposed to be patrolling.
    It’s all good, they have more surveillance cameras per square mile than anywhere else on Earth, so it’s all on video. Maybe it’ll go viral on YouTube.
    Too bad Princess Di and her Egyptian (?) beau didn’t see that concrete pillar in Paris, otherwise, there might already be an Anglo-Arab dynasty to rule over it all.

  3. Keeping Germany on a short leash was hardly a secret. See the Morgentau Plan, previously referred to here, and my comment on the post above this, regarding Western troops remaining after WW2.

  4. The term “islamophobia” was created to blur and ultimately destroy what should be an obvious distinction to any rational person: The difference between cultural or ideological criticism, and racism.

    It’s a noble cause to rationally question political and religious ideas, starting with one’s own but never limited to it out of “cultural sensitivity” or what we used to call “moral relativism.” In fact, frequently “moral relativism” is the province of closet racists who believe “those people don’t know any better.” That is not for us to judge. Everyone starts with a blank slate, everyone has choices to make, and it is completely reasonable to draw conclusions about a person based on the ideology they publicly subscribe to! It is on the other hand a fundamentally evil mistake to assume you can draw conclusions about someone’s merits, ideology, intelligence or intentions based on their racial background. The truth is we simply don’t have the degree of variance in the human race that exists in dogs, and more to the point, we are not dogs. We are capable of choosing reason over unreason, and of understanding the consequences of our actions, whatever race we are from.

    So ironically, we have this term “islamophobia” which was created by the same Muslims who claim that “anti-Zionism is not antisemitism”. Quite interesting, that – because it contains an admission that it is perfectly alright to criticize an ideology which actually *is* clearly bound to and identifiable with a particular race. Surely if you can criticize Zionism, which is almost exclusively the province of members of the Jewish race (plus some Anglo-American evangelicals), then you can criticize Islam — which is a religion practiced by people from every race on earth. To make such a contradictory claim, that it’s okay to criticize one but not the other, Muslims must make a further claim: That Islam is not a political ideology as Zionism is, nor does it manifest itself as a geopolitical entity as Israel does. Zionism, we’re told, is “expansionist” and “apartheid”. Yet since 1967 it has done little but take in the mostly non-religious Jews who were evicted from Muslim countries, while giving up land to the expansionist Islamic ideology all around it, discounting some housing developments that would fit in an area smaller than Disney World, which most Jews readily apologize for and wish to give back in the dim hope that giving up the last kilometer might make the problem go away. It’s quite clear who wants to expand and who is practicing apartheid. This is not even to mention the enslavement of women that takes place in the Muslim world, which really *is* a form of apartheid. Nor to compare that with the 20% Muslim population of Israel who have a political party that’s allowed to exist effectively at war with the state, and who serve as members of the Knesset.

    So we come back to this European model of “anti-racism” which is so attuned to ignoring the ideology of Muslims as to treat the religion as if it constituted a race, while being the same “anti-racism” which brings back anti-semitic tropes of Jews (the ideology – the Zionists, of course, not the race) trying to dominate the world; which buys oil from virtual slave states in the Gulf and boycotts Israeli products under the insane rubric that it’s alright since Israelis – and any Jews who support Israel – constitute *only* an ideology and *not* a race, while Muslims somehow constitute a race but not an ideology. The term “islamophobia” contains in itself, and in fact was designed as, a perfect inversion of anti-semitism, and it serves as a way to re-normalize that old poison in Europe under the guise of tolerance… just as Hitler normalized Jew-hatred under the guise of loving one’s own race.

    Jews and Gypsies are, by and large, members of a race. The fact that some Jews are religious and others not so made no difference to the Nazis: One could not choose *not* to be Jewish, even if one was only 1/4th Jewish. The fact that some lived in Polish villages and others were highly cultured Germans made no difference. Even the fact that the ones they kicked out ended up building the A-bomb for America and sending us to the moon really made no difference. To them, a Jew was a Jew based on race. That is the precise reason why Israel has the basic law of return. Israel accepts anyone with Jewish blood based on Hitler’s definition, so that it should never happen again.

    European “anti-islamophobia” is nothing more or less than an attempt to go back to the antisemitic European past, wearing the mask of multiculturalist apology. For when Muslims attack Jews in the streets of Europe, they’re doing what the Europeans wish they could do — and it’s quietly understood and even to some extent tolerated, because Jews as a RACE are assumed to stand for Israel which they apparently have no right to, while Muslims — an ideology — supposedly have every right to stand for the “oppressed” “race” of Palestinians.

    How many logical pretzels can Europe twist itself into, to prioritize new ways of accommodating antisemitism? If you wonder whether it’s hyperbole to claim that the European Left is so antisemitic that they’d rather see Europe fall to Islam than acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, consider that the last German Reich fell in part because Hitler was so obsessed with devoting resources to wiping out Jews that he allowed that to take precedence over fighting the Russians. And perhaps for Europe, this really is the “Final Solution”. There’s certainly nowhere as Judenfrei as the Muslim world, and by all appearances, the European Left simply can’t wait to join.

    • “Everyone starts with a blank slate”

      While this is true it is also undeniably true that the level of consanguinity present in Muslim culture that is the result of well over a millennia of inbreeding has significantly lowered the average IQ of Muslims as a group. It has been scientifically demonstrated.

      • Nazis said the same thing about Jews. But they managed to make it sound like a genetic fault at the same time as they claimed it gave us some kind of extra craftiness at manipulating people. You could say the same thing about people from the Appalachian mountains, anywhere from western Massachusetts to Georgia. Yet good people come from those places and even if someone’s grandpa was his own cousin, you can’t just disregard people on that score.

        I also think this: If we are going to decide we’re capable of holding Muslims responsible for the results of their beliefs, we have to get rid of the racist mode of thinking that says “the people over there don’t know better”. We have to give to each his own, the will and the right to become members of modern civilization — just as we blame each in his own right for the damage caused by subscribing to a medieval way of thinking. Otherwise, the argument against Islam wouldn’t hold any water.

  5. Maybe there needs to be a new word – “Ziophobia”. Fear of Jews having their own country. Hah.

Comments are closed.