Below is a German opinion writer’s acerbic take on the politically correct madness of the West as uncovered by last weekend’s jihad massacre in Orlando.
Many thanks to JLH for the translation from Die Preußische Allgemeine Zeitung:
We Were the Ones — Who Else?
How the West originally made Muslims gay-haters, what the Thais have to do with Auschwitz, and what idiots we are.
Week in Review
by Hans Heckel
June 18, 2016
In overheated situations, it is especially important to differentiate. We must be on guard against hastily drawn conclusions, which could lead to general condemnations.
We refer, of course to the massacre in Orlando in the US state of Florida. At the moment, there is some confusion over whether the radical Islamic terrorist acted out of religious delusion or just out of pure hatred for gays. That was the day-long theme on all channels and in almost all newspapers. At this time, it seems to be the most explosive question of all. An interesting guessing game. By the same logic, we could put the labored question of whether the murderers of Jews in the 1940s acted out of the ideological delusion of Hitlerism, or just plain Jew-hatred.
You ask: What is this idiotic distinction supposed to accomplish? Yes, we’d like to hear the answer to that, too. But we are not being quite honest here — because we already know the answer. It’s the old saw about “Nothing to do with Islam.” Even the Gutmenschen can hardly fail to recognize that hatred of gays is especially thick on the ground in Islamic countries, which is a dilemma for the “Has nothing to do with Islam” faction.
A writer for Die Welt offers an elegant solution. To be sure, there is a particularly well developed homophobia in Islamic countries. However, its tradition is not a long one. With a display of knowledge, she presents proof in the form of examples of homo-erotically tinged literature of the Muslim Middle Ages.
And then, not until the 19th century does uptightness make an appearance and — you guessed it — in a work of the colonial powers. In other words, we are the guilty ones. As evidence, our commentator proffers a work from the 13th century which was published anew in Damascus at the end of the 19th century. In this edition, the passages in question are relegated to the end of the book, so that “the reader at need may do away with them.” When the work was published in Beirut a few years later, the passages were no longer a part of it. The Welt writer attributes this to the “censorship regulations of colonial powers,” which would lead the reader who had already heard of the unhealthy influence of the “Victorian” West to think of the English, the French, or the like.
But who was the “colonial power” in Beirut and Damascus at the end of the 19th century”? It was the Ottoman Empire, whose sultan also had the title “caliph.” You can’t get any more Islamic than that. Well, maybe. Right there, in the Arabian Peninsula, the rulers, then as now, were the Saudis, under whose reign Wahhabism has become a religious guideline. This is that stream of radical Islamism whose adherents outside of Saudi Arabia are known as Salafists. They are those shaggy Koran distributors you recognize from the pedestrian zone.
Never in their history did the Saudis have a “Western colonial power” over them. Before the discovery of their oil resources, no one had the slightest interest in the waste they called a homeland. Only the coastal areas of the present-day kingdom were ruled by foreigners — and those were not Europeans, but Turks. In their dry-as-dust hinterlands, the Saudis were largely untouched, and could calmly and in isolation brew a radical version of Islam, whose excesses today horrify the whole world. So, enough of “the guilt of the West.” What impels the Welt writer to such remarkable contortions, which are so easy to refute? Apparently, it is the obtrusion of an obsession which you may have encountered frequently. She is pressing the victims into service to represent — in all the evils of the world — the Guilt of the West, of the European, of the White Man or, ideally, of the German. If this guilt cannot be proved, then it will be constructed, no matter how sloppily it is put together.
As to the guilt of the Germans, the overriding narratives are again achieving an apogee. The Green chief Cem Özdemir accuses Germans of being accomplices to the Turkish genocide against the Armenians, so now we have taken on the guilt of complicity.
Brief overview: At the time (1915), Germany was fighting for survival. A rift between Berlin and Constantinople could have caused a catastrophe on its southeast flank. What could the Empire have done to stop the Turks? That is the ploy of the hyper-moralist. They measure the accused against standards that they cannot accommodate, no matter how they contort. So they are caught in the trap of the miscreant. What gives this an especially shrill tone is that the accusation is being made by an ethnic Turk.
Just imagine a German representative in the Japanese parliament. I know, there are none. Just assume there were, and he accused the Japanese of complicity in Hitler’s murder of the Jews, because they were allies of Berlin. How long would it be before his party (whichever one) advised him to stand down and make a full apology to the Japanese people? A quarter of an hour? Three minutes? Anyway — weren’t the Thais also allies of the Axis powers? Did they know about their complicity in Auschwitz? I am afraid they don’t even know about it. It’s high time for Cem Özdemir to give these Far Eastern pharisees a clue.
Of course, he will not, and we know why: Being-Universally-Complicit only applies to certain groups and peoples. It is especially good with Germans, because they are so eager to sit up and beg, and then come up with a nice little gratuity.
Other peoples react to such harassments more basically, laugh at the accuser, or pound him a good one. Who could imagine making the Americans or British complicit with the actions of the Red Army and the Stalin regime against German civilians and many East European peoples, just because the Western powers were their allies at that time? Nobody.
The standards change with lightning quickness, depending on which people is being judged. So much for the highly touted “equality of all peoples.” It really wasn’t meant that way. And also, there is this painful question of what exactly “German” is. For decades now, we have been learning that we are basically a diverse, mixed race people. Since Caesar’s time (at the latest!), all kinds of ethnicities have been moving in with their baggage, so that there never really was anything like “German,” let alone “pure German.”
And now that isn’t true anymore either. With an astonishing reach into ethnic hereditary theory, Wolfgang Schäuble has discovered “inbreeding” — an unhealthy excess of “thoroughbrededness” — that bespeaks a pressing need for a massive alien refreshment of our bloodlines. What a turnaround that is! The pollsters are always asking what we Germans think of our politicians. Maybe they should try it the other way around — what the politicians think of us, the German citizens. They seem to take us for utter fools.
|1.||He was born in Germany. Both parents immigrated to Germany from Turkey, in 1961 (father) and 1964 (mother). His father belonged to the ethnic minority Circassians.|
|2.||Longest-serving member of Bundestag (CDU), holder of various ministerial posts.