The following article by Hans-Peter Raddatz analyzes the process of the Islamization of Europe. It was originally published in the Austrian daily Die Presse, and has been translated by Rembrandt Clancy, who also provides endnotes explaining some of the references in the essay.
About the Author
Dr. Hans Peter Raddatz was born in 1941. His specialities are Middle Eastern and Oriental studies and Economics. After being active for many years representing the interests of international banks in the Near East, he wrote numerous books on the fundamentals of globalisation, Islam and the Islamisation of the West. He has made contributions to the Encyclopaedia of Islam and has translated Bat Ye’or’s Europe, Globalization, and the Coming of the Universal Caliphate, providing it with a commentary (cf. Gates of Vienna).
Note: Quotations in this article from the Koran are taken directly from the English language edition by N. J. Dawood (Penguin, 1974).
Europe’s Elites, EU Citizens and Islam
According to the credo of those in power, the importing of Islam can only enrich, fertilise and renovate European societies. Anyone who doubts that is immediately marginalised as “racist” and “fascist”.
by Hans-Peter Raddatz
German Language Source:
March 6, 2016
With the attacks in Paris and Brussels and with the influx of people from the Middle East, the political-social landscape of Europe is once more in lasting turmoil. In this connection and in view of the reflexive din in the media, it seems useful to stand back and take into account the “persons responsible” for the events, to look at the functional elites [politicians, media specialists, academics etc.] in the institutions and their behaviour patterns.
For it has long been apparent that there is a facile narrowness in the public parties to the discussion, who use a unidimensional, hackneyed speech and become aggressive as soon as criticism of their project for the Islamisation of Europe begins to stir. This is particularly so since the EU, in concert with the Mecca Manifesto of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) of 2005, declared Islam the “partner of Europe” [Miteigner Europas] (Bat Ye’or, Europe, Globalization, and the Coming of the Universal Caliphate).
Deprivation of Rights and Expropriation
The document regulates the spread of Islam, which, together with mosque networks, assassinations in Europe, persecution of Christians in the Middle East, the use of European leaders and actions against Israel, strictly follows the Koran.
Thus for the functional elites, “cultural dialogue” serves as propaganda for an Islam-diktat, which imposes on EU citizens a general renunciation of “vested rights” dressed up as tolerance. By this is meant the removal of rights to civic co-determination, rights to participatory influence on the common good and the right to a share in the disposition of state assets, all of which had been worked out during the building of the postwar democracies; and which now, in Austria and Germany alike, are being dissolved consistently to the benefit of the Muslim “partners”.
Critics among the public are concerned with the question of how in a democracy such expropriation and deprivation of civil rights is justifiable, while at the same time “those responsible” identify the demand for a voice in an election programme as “incitement to hatred”. For its part, this radicalisation enforces the pithy typecasting of emotive clichés and thought prohibitions, which in the single-lens reflex of the people’s representatives and at the levels of institutional leadership naturally comes into view as “democratic” politics.
When the Pope kisses the feet of Muslims and recommends a “proper reading of the Koran” to his “faithful”, he equalises everything down to the same level as much as the sham-secular propaganda cadres in the institutions, whose credo smoothens Islam out on a plane between “religion of peace” and “cradle of science”. Since Islamic violence is deemed “abuse of faith”, Europe’s totalitarian tradition can be rehabilitated by protecting the Koranic licence to power under freedom of religion.
That framework was followed by the German Minister of the Interior, according to whom “the capture of Islamic assassins increases the danger of terrorism” (Phoenix, 24.3.), for it is known that these acts do not come from the terrorists but from Allah [for] “it was not you who slew them: Allah smote them…” (Koran. 8:17).
Everything becomes New and Different
That “not all” Muslims are terrorists, forms the invertible protective formula for the warding off of “general suspicion”, which for all Muslims, whether terrorists or not, secures their jihad as “perseverance in faith”, especially since they are “the noblest nation that has ever been raised up for mankind” [Koran. 3:110]. In this way the Islam-key opens up for the functional elites the fullness of modern transformation by virtue of everything becoming new and “above all different”.
Rejection of tradition brings with it the disappearance of the “old” thinking, the latter having made freedom of rejection possible in the first place, and replaces it with defamation, which is what weak-thinking personnel promote. According to their tunnel logic, with the importation of Islam, European society can enrich, fertilise and renew itself in every respect; hence it is not entitled to any kind of proof.
Enforced in such a way, this success persuades the protagonists of their membership in a favoured class or race and conditions them to attack, as “racists”, those citizens who complain about the increase in the criminal offences of Muslims.
This corresponds to the Islamic interpretation of the world, which preferably recognises people as “beasts” or a “torrent of scum”  (27:44). That these people are suitable only for working and paying is modern practice and Koranic knowledge (9:29), and follows the historical tribute system apparent today in the utilitarian engine of global human exploitation.
With the deregulation of finance and of political culture through the IMF, WTO etc., the elites are implementing a gigantic upward redistribution and are currently preparing for the ultimate coup: the suctioning of pension funds and private investments through negative interest.
Obsessive “eye to the right”
Here the interests of capital blend with political religion, which wards off scepticism as “phobia” or even “envy” and brings to light the paradox in excessive power. The tolerance doctrine dictates the obsessive “eye to the right”, but itself fuels the suspicion of totalitarianism. By the protagonists’ passing off the importation of Islam as their salvific objective, whilst dismissing criticism of it as “fascism” and “racism”, they surpass Hitler. For it was precisely he who regretted not having Islam to hand as the ideal key to the retention of power: “Had we been Mohammedans, we would have possessed the world today”.
The radical system-amalgam brings the beneficiaries into a position between perpetrators and victims of their own functionality, which knows no free consensus with society. Custom and abuse represent the equivocal, deceptive character of power, which can appear as abuse by the elites, abuse of the elites or both — similar to the picture illusion which fluctuates between an old woman and young lady.
The dominance-bonus allows the protagonists to oscillate between competence and incompetence, especially since criticism is often considered as “conspiratorial thinking”, thus further lowering the capability of making judgements. In the current situational mélange, the EU’s imposition of turbo-immigration “without upper limits” emerges accordingly as the curious product of perpetrator and victim characteristic of the power trend.
A prerequisite for an understanding of the problem and mentality of the functional elites is to view modern pluralistic society as a dynamic system, which perforce unfolds in a way which is as much liberal as it is standardised to money. At the heart of the matter is a formative structure [Gebilde] in continual change, which, however, can be bindingly fixed in place politically the more stringently it rests on moral standards like tolerance.
Radical currents following in the wake of the left-right extremes, which attack European culture at its heart, are now opening up under enormous, elitist and monetary leverage.
Discussion models still circulate seeking to justify world transformation using Kant’s freedom-ideal of the Categorical Imperative, because the latter can turn Islam into the maxim for a Universal Law. Indeed, reality has long since revealed that public immaturity is not self-incurred but is generated by elites.
|1.||Mecca Manifesto: Dr. Raddatz uses term in reference the outcome of a meeting of the OIC’s fifty-six countries in Mecca on December 7-8, 2005. It was the Third Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Summit Conference. The Conference published a “Ten-Year Programme of Action” which included plans to criminalise “Islamophobia”. According to Bat Ye’or, the proposals
In the same passage, the author uses the expression “partners of Europe [Miteigner]”. Miteigner, in its most fundamental sense, means “co-owner”. We have been unable to find a reference in English to this term; however, given that more than one “owner” is meant and also that is used in an international context, we translate the term as “partner”. According to Bat Ye’or:
|2.||…recognises people as “beasts” or a “torrent of scum”: The reference in the article to Koran 27:44 does not yield these terms. A German word for “beasts”, Vieh, which can also mean “cattle” is found in 8:22:
The metaphor, torrent of scum, is implied in the Koran immediately following a passage on idolatry, where it is used to distinguish believers from idolaters:
|3.||The Categorical Imperative:
Kant’s Categorical Imperative starts out as a maxim, a “subjective principle of the volition” (ibid. p. 16). The maxim, according to Kant, is an a priori ethical principal; that is, each individual generates it from an internal, pre-existing tendency called a disposition (Gesinnung). If the individual can accept the maxim (of his choice) without contradicting the golden rule, then he should ‘will’ that it become externalised as Universal Law, by definition the Categorical Imperative. The maxim is the weakest point in Kant’s theory because of its vagueness and the subjectivity of its recognition. This vagueness of the maxim disposes the Categorical Imperative itself to co-optation by those with the power of interpretation.
The meaning of “freedom” in relation to the Categorical Imperative is also privative, a “freedom from”; that is, it is independent of (Judeo-Christian) tradition and from any external metaphysical principles.
|4.||“public immaturity is not self-inflicted”: This phrase is a reference to the famous first line of Kant’s “An Answer to the Question: “What is Enlightenment?”:
Dr. Hans Peter Raddatz was born in 1941. His specialities are Middle Eastern and Oriental studies and Economics. After being active for many years representing the interests of international banks in the Near East, he wrote numerous books on the fundamentals of globalisation, Islam and the Islamisation of the West. He has made contributions to the Encyclopaedia of Islam and has translated Bat Ye’or’s Europe, Globalization, and the Coming of the Universal Caliphate, providing it with a commentary.
For previous essays by or about Hans-Peter Raddatz, see the Hans-Peter Raddatz Archives.