Question on Fundamental Principles to the Alternative für Deutschland Party (Part 2)

Below is the second part of a two-part essay by Hans-Peter Raddatz about the AfD (Alternative for Germany). Rembrandt Clancy translated the piece, and has provided an introduction and extensive endnotes.

Part 1 is here.

Question on Fundamental Principles to the Alternative für Deutschland Party (Part 2)

Are the AfD Barking Up the Wrong Tree?

About the Author

Dr. Hans Peter Raddatz counts, along with Dr. Tilman Nagel, as one of the most prolific specialists in Middle Eastern and Oriental studies in Germany (PI-News). He is also an economist, consultant and writer. 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.


by Rembrandt Clancy

In the first part of this two-part series, Dr. Raddatz described the political, constitutional and journalistic-propaganda pressures that can be brought to bear on the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) as the party attempts to establish a real “alternative for Germany” while continuing to work within a socio-political “system” to which Chancellor Merkel has effectively declared that “there is no alternative”.

In Part 2, Dr. Raddatz describes the combined influence of corporate globalism, socialism at the level of state institutions and the increasing application of Koran-compliant standards to an underclass. He outlines mechanisms already in place which threaten to suppress or co-opt any alternative virtually as soon as it is even thought.

Among the German elites of today, Dr. Raddatz names two prominent representatives of this Islam-admiring tradition. Among the “tips of the icebergs”, with strong socialist backgrounds, are Sigmar Gabriel of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) who was Minister of Foreign Affairs in the last Merkel government and Frank-Walter Steinmeier (SPD) who has been President of Germany since March of 2017.

Dr. Raddatz closes with a strategy by which the AfD might avoid being absorbed by the Uni-Party system before the latter becomes completely “totalised” (totalisiert).

Are the AfD Barking Up the Wrong Tree? (Part 2)

by Hans-Peter Raddatz

4 March 2018

Original German Language Source: PI-News

What sets the current situation apart is the massive growth in the power of Islam, which, as an “ideological fission fungus” (Raddatz 2001/2002), has developed into the most important standard of political “leadership competence”. Who wishes to escape it must avoid the growing constraints of the system, and that requires the construction of a completely independent propaganda apparatus. Only when it is daily made incontrovertibly clear to the people that for half a century several generations of “democratically elected” politicians and their enforcers in the media, education and churches have systematically rendered them stupid, dispossessed and ever more massively replaced can an effective alternative emerge.

Apart from the Uni-Party’s list system,[1] which by itself circumvents democratic elections, the ruling class will thwart any alternative and absorb any competition as long as they are able to influence the statistics and push through their corporate-oriented labour, social and cultural policies with the use of defamation, bribery and intimidation of resistances. While this alliance of economically radical globalisation and socialist destruction of the civil state, which in the USA is called “welfare for millionaires”, has enforced a perverted “tolerance”, the Islamic invasion has brought about a condition of quasi-war, which “justifies” despotism and turns the local Hartz-IV-existence[2] into a Koran-compliant norm, because the latter is an underclass norm, for the invasion knows “no limits” (Merkel).

Thus the elites are blossoming into the jihad accomplices of the Muslim Brotherhood, for they are in the tradition of German radicalism, which with Lessing, Goethe & Co.[3] were already admirers of the feudal Islam-despots. And with the exploitation of the indigenous population, they are transforming their country into a paradise of violence for Allah’s emigrants. This is promised in the Koran and can lend a quasi-religious nuance to the Western practise of radicalism, thus helping to explain why the new quasi-People of God are not deported and are cared for by an army of well-paid welcoming-specialists who are perfecting the ruination of the state in their own interests.

How far we are from a real alternative is evidenced by the innumerable “experts” in all institutions who, at taxpayers’ expense and with their continual demands for “reforms”, help themselves and the administrations of the social— cultural— and Islam-industry to lavish incomes. They are the outcome of a long-term trend which, after the armed march of the father of terrorism and Muslim Brother, Arafat, into the UN (1974), began with the founding of euro-Arabic political— and media-organisations, which attracted enormous grants from the EU and the OIC and have been pressing ahead since 2005 with their joint Islamisation programme.

That Helmut Kohl’s “spiritual-moral turnaround” [geistig-moralische Wende] prepared the way for the subsequent “Agenda 2010”,[4] not only in respect of the technology of labour, but also in a radically political way, subsequent events confirm. The spiritual-moral turnaround is reflected in the official agencies occupied by the ’68 activists and also among the civil servants of the Interior Ministry and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who in the 1990s, in discrete meetings in Lebanon, galvanised what today is the perfect alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood. And with the combined “blessing” of Church and global corporations they laid the groundwork for the targeted infiltration of Islam-oriented forces into government ministries, universities, party foundations and churches right up to the Vatican.

The tips of these icebergs, where the conspiracy theory specialists have trouble reaching the bottom, are currently visible among the political “elites”. They find in the SPD’s Sigmar Gabriel a loyal Muslim Brotherhood sympathiser who refers to the German-hater, Yücel,[5] as a “patriot”. Furthermore, in Frank-Walter Steinmeier they have in their ranks a reverential vassal who, during the ceremonials of the Federal President, laid a wreath at the tomb of the very well-known enemy of Israel and Islamic terrorist, Arafat, an event which was as much a logical as it was a concentrated reversal of the wreath which was once devoted to the “unknown soldier”. The more successful the advance of the Islam trend, which specifically targets Germany, the more triumphantly the activists behave, who also normalise the radicalism with an education which is logically gratuitous or renders the trend harmless.

All of this, of course, stands in the shadow of the Kohl-heiress, Angela Merkel, whose charisma unleashed the historic Volk-deluge of approximately two million Near- and Middle-Easterners in two years, and confirmed the efficiency of the multiculti [bunten] Uni-Party. Their anti-German [volksfeindlich] enforcers have humbled themselves under their empress [Herrscherin] so convincingly that the recent, perpetual theatre surrounding the “formation of a government” emerged as a veiled reformulation of neo-despotism, likewise convincingly illustrated by Martin Schulz, who vaporised in the retort of the SPD from 100 percent to null percent chairman.[6]

Not least the party clones also turn the hackneyed prayer wheels of a spectral “dialogue”. These are the ideologically standardised (gleichgeschaltet) collectivity of students in faculties of the universities. Above all, however, they include the media-party organs of conformist papers like the “clever mind”[7] of the FAZ/FAS or the perhaps still “cleverer minds” of the TV-anchor men and talk-show women. Furthermore, they preach unceasingly against the Islamophobic incendiaries who add fuel to the fire, disturb the peace, set blazes ever anew and/or perpetrate attacks on their Islam-fixated ersatz reality.

By re-masticating and mimicking the verbal clichés and behavioural reflexes amassed over the decades, the politico-media phalanx, thanks to defective or absent intellect,[8] have been furnishing a valuable memory bank, which, with the resources of digitalisation — required by the Chancellor herself[9] — and supplemented by algorithms of artificial intelligence and linguistic analysis, are facilitating an innovative data bank and can very effectively support the alternative system propaganda.

As long as the AfD acts within the constantly self-radicalising political system, they will be less able to play the role of an alternative the more totalitarian the Uni-Party and its influence on the institutions becomes. Given the momentum by which German politics follows its original red-brown prototypes, there is not much time remaining within the ever narrowing room for manoeuvre to develop actual alternatives in favour of an intact political and judicial system. Not all judges are yet prepared to be silent on a pro-Islamic perversion of the course of justice:

The constitutional order in the Federal Republic, however, has been in abeyance in this field for around one and a half years, and unlawful entry into federal territory is at present de facto no longer criminally prosecuted. (Higher Regional Court [Oberlandesgericht], 14 February 2017)

If the AfD wishes to avoid absorption into the system, they will decide their future with the capability of constructing a propaganda machine modelled on the one mentioned above, or something similar. It will be capable of detecting their deficiencies using the resources of the technologising modern age. In addition to the long-available description of an exhausted governmental system like “democracy” in the context of the EU, its central exercise will be to justify itself above all as the consequence of an Islam-fixated change of world view, to the system violence for which there is indeed a humane alternative.

This can only be conveyed to the people if the mechanisms of responsibility in the main sectors of immigration, labour, education and culture are daily disclosed and written into the public consciousness. Contrary to popular belief, that is not to be achieved through individual blogs which, as part of the system, only react to extreme power instead of “driving it ahead of themselves”.[10]

As long as the situation remains as it is and the initiative fails to pass over to the critical alternative, all forms of criticism will cancel themselves out, the more so as their number increases. In other words: not “divide and rule”; rather, the watchword is, unite the people through beneficial alternative information, which presupposes that the state is not yet totalised [totalisiert] and that degrees of freedom open up which neither hinder such alternatives nor interfere with their state financing.[11]

Translator’s Endnotes

1. “Apart from the Uni-Party’s list system, which by itself undermines democratic elections….”: For an explanation of this system see Encyclopaedia Britannica.

2. “turns the local-Hart-IV-existence into the Koran-compliant norm”: Peter Hartz was the head of the committee which in 2003 recommended the eponymous fourth stage of a benefits system to the red-green coalition government of Social Democratic Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder. A central feature of the package was to combine previously separate, long-term unemployment and welfare benefits into a single benefit scheme. A reasonably factual account of the Hartz-IV can be found at This source makes the following statement which carries the implication that long-term Hartz-IV benefit provisions may encourage a permanent “underclass”:

Hartz-IV has become a synonym for the class of non-working poor and is used as a prefix in multiple contexts (i.e. low-brow daytime television programmes are called “Hartz-IV TV” by critics).

Hartz-IV came into force as an important item in the Schröder government’s much broader economic plan called “Agenda 2010”, which Dr. Raddatz also mentions (see endnote 4).

3. “Thus the elites are in the tradition of the German radicalism, who with Lessing, Goethe & Co.3 were already admirers of the feudal Islam-despots.”

Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729-1781) was an important writer of the German Enlightenment. Nathan the Wise (1779) is a didactic play on religious tolerance among Christians, Jews and Muslims.

Corresponding to Nathan the Wise in its admiration of Islam is West-East Divan (West-Östlichen Diwan, 1819) by Johann Wolfgang Goethe (1749-1832). It is a collection of Diwan, or, more particularly (in this case), Persian poems modelled after Hafez (1315-1390).

By the expression “Lessing and Goethe, & Co.”, Dr. Raddatz includes other Enlightenment figures such as Friedrich the Great and Voltaire as pro-Islamic thinkers who anticipate the present-day German elites (Vordenker). He mentions them in the context of tolerance in the following selection from a much longer passage which goes on to include Napoleon, “the priest of the religion of reason” who had “begun humanistic mission in Egypt where the centre of Eastern culture was imagined to be”:

The French Revolution and the thinkers which anticipated it, like Friedrich the Great and Voltaire, had identified the important achievement of Humanism as tolerance, which was to be practised toward all heterodox believers and with particular emphasis on Islam as the foremost goal of this exercise. Friedrich could imagine all of Prussia “being populated” [peupliren] with Muslims, and in his antagonism toward Christianity Voltaire recognised in Islam the one true faith, the “simple theism”, which appeared to come very close to his Masonic idea of the “Supreme Being”. [Von Allah zum Terror? München: Herbig, 2002: p. 148 — all emphases original]

4.spiritual-moral turnaround” and “Agenda 2010”: The “spiritual-moral turnaround” was an election slogan used by Helmut Kohl (1930-1917) in the early eighties.

With the vote of no confidence on October 1, 1982, Helmut Schmidt’s tenure as Federal Chancellor ended, and CDU party chairman and fraction leader Helmut Kohl became his successor. … In his first government policy address of October 13, 1982, Kohl proclaimed a “policy of renewal” [Politik der Erneuerung] and said that his “urgent measures program” would focus on creating jobs, securing the social welfare system, settling upon a “humane immigration policy,” and renewing German foreign and security policy. [Upon] [a]ssuming his chancellorship, Kohl claimed to represent [a] “spiritual and moral turnaround” in the direction of conservatism. (cf. German History in Documents and Images (DGDB)

“Agenda 2010” was a broad economic program introduced by the red-green coalition government of Gerhard Schröder (1998 to 2005). One of its measures was to collapse the welfare and unemployment benefits programmes into a single long-term benefits system called Hartz-IV (See endnote 2).

5. “the SPD’s Sigmar Gabriel a loyal Muslim Brotherhood sympathiser who refers to the German-hater, Yücel”:

Deniz Yücel is quoted as writing that “[t]he early demise of the Germans is the dying-out of a people at its most beautiful” (See part 1 of this article, Endnotes 4 and 5)

Born in Germany, Yücel is a second-generation son of Turkish immigrants who were part of the guest worker (Gastarbeiter) programme (1950s to 1970s). He has duel citizenship. Hence, as a journalist with a “background” (Hintergrund), he can make such statements as the one recorded above and be applauded by such as Sigmar Gabriel, the President of the German Republic.

6. “Martin Schulz, who vaporised in the retort of the SPD from 100 percent to null percent chairman.”:

Martin Schulz was one of those who “humbled” himself under Frau Merkel, since in a very short period of time he went from President of the European Parliament to having no position at all, and in a way which appears, in the end, to have served the Chancellor, his “ruler” (Herrscherin). Schulz, as an unelected high official in the EU, has strongly promoted mass immigration into Europe and is therefore Volksfeindlich, here meaning ‘hostile to the indigenous German people’. The history of how he went “from 100 percent to null percent” is explained in what follows.

After Martin Schulz announced his intention to resign from his position as President of the European Parliament, he was elected leader of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) on 24 January 2017, hence becoming the SPD candidate for chancellor in the upcoming federal election on 24 September 2017, replacing Sigmar Gabriel (SPD) as party leader. Schulz was the first in SPD leader in the party’s history to have been elected with no dissenting votes, hence he became known in some quarters as Mr. 100% (PI News, 9 February 2018). In the subsequent federal election, the SPD under Schulz dropped to 20.5% of the popular vote, “as low as it has ever been in the 150 year history of the SPD” (Ibid). After coalition talks, and notwithstanding these electoral losses, Schulz resigned as SPD Chairman and announced his intention to succeed Sigmar Gabriel as Minister of Foreign Affairs in the new government. However, widespread opposition to this plan within the SPD forced Schulz to resign as Foreign Minister after only a day and a half (cf. Breitbart UK 9 February 2018), hence he had gone from “100 percent to null percent chairman”:

7. “the ‘clever mind’ of the FAZ/FAS”: A certain Jürgen Scholz was known in the Germany of the 1960s as a creative advertiser:

…one of Scholz’s most famous campaigns is a long-running series of print ads for the newspaper Fankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ). Well-known personalities are photographed in dramatic settings, their faces hidden behind the broadsheet newspaper, in which they are clearly engrossed. The tagline reads, ‘There’s always a clever mind behind it.’ (Tungate, Mark. Adland: A global history of advertising. (2nd ed.) London: KaganPage, 2013: 139-40)

The FAZ still uses the slogan today.

8.… re-masticates and mimics … verbal clichés and behavioural reflexes … defective or absent intellect, an estimable mnemonic inventory … digitalisation, … supplemented by algorithms of artificial intelligence and linguistic analysis … system-propaganda…”:

In Dr. Raddatz’s writings, the reduction of thought to “verbal clichés and behavioural reflexes represents the de-ratiocination (Denkschwund) of the modern age. Differentiated thinking is replaced by stimulus-response learning or S-R conditioning, which is reflexive, automatic and passive, in the sense that all behaviour is controlled from the environment. Classical conditioning (Pavlov) and instrumental-operant conditioning (Thorndike/Skinner) are the most elementary paradigms for this type of learning. It is their elementary reflexivity which gives them their biologistic character, hence the “biologisation of thinking” (Biologisierung des Denkens):

Reflexive thinking is reduced to a quasi-linear track-thinking, having at its disposal just a few “knowledge” stereotypes which, as a rule, are barely connected and consequently react to environmental stimuli with automaton-like repetitions. Elasticity of intellectual connectivity has yielded to a cognitive rigidification which reduces consciousness to its essential capability: the autonomy of thinking in its own interests, and hence it is reduced from a subject to an object dominated by its environment. (Raddatz, Hans-Peter. Vom Allah zum Terror. München: Herbig, 2002: p. 315 — emphasis original).

9. “resources of digitalisation”: Frau Merkel has recently emphasised the importance of “digitalisation” to Germany. In the final sitting of the Bundestag and prior to the federal election of 24 September, the Chancellor warned that Germany should not allow herself to lag behind when it comes to digitalisation: “We do not want to end up with Germany in the technological museum” (Die Welt, 5 September 2017). At the recent World Economic Forum in Davos she said that Germany is not leading in several fields of digitalisation (, 24 January 2018).

10. “react to extreme power instead of ‘driving it [the system] ahead of themselves’“: Instead of changing the system in the direction sought by the operators of the blog, they can only remain passive in the face of it.

11. “…nor interfere with their state financing”: This phrase may refer to the system in Germany whereby all political parties hire their own publicly paid parliamentary staff who are also party members. A spokesman for the AfD, Maximilian Krah, has recently made this point (cf. the Introduction to ‘Why is Merkel Opening the Borders Anyway?’, Gates of Vienna, 2 March 2018)

For previous essays by or about Hans-Peter Raddatz, see the Hans-Peter Raddatz Archives.

3 thoughts on “Question on Fundamental Principles to the Alternative für Deutschland Party (Part 2)

  1. I have read Raddatz at PI News and seen the complaints about his obscure style in German from German native speakers.
    So I extend a solid vote of thanks to Rembrandt Clancy for the enormous amount of work necessary incl. his superlative footnotes

  2. Maybe a better suiting translation: “totalised” (totalisiert) = brought into line.

  3. “Thus the elites are in the tradition of the German radicalism, who with Lessing, Goethe & Co. were already admirers of the feudal Islam-despots.”

    This point 3 shows the courage and philosophic genius of Mr. Raddatz, and its content is more alarming than anything else he mentions.

    However, it also provides us with very profound answers, if we dare to face and investigate it a bit deeper. It shows that the most acute contemporary problems we are confronting have roots that go much further back in our history than we are usually inclined to assume, and reaches even up to thinkers whom we regard as light bearers of our civilization.

    The latter is probably less probematic for Americans and Russians, who still have more Christian sources to rely one, but for Europeans, the legacies of Goethe, Lessing and Voltaire are essential to our understanding of ourselves and our society.

    This western admiration for Islam can be traced back to four separate sources.

    1. From the 16th Century on, Protestantism, and its resentment against the „pagan” rituals and worship of Saints by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which they contrast with the strict monotheism of the Old-Testament, which they also saw manifested in Islam, thereby tragically forgetting the essence of Christianity, which is belief in the Lord Jesus Christ, and not the (absence of) cults and rituals.

    2. From the 17th Century, rationalism, in which Islam was perceived as being more friendly to science than Christianity. Voltaire’s stance is a clear example of this.

    3. From the early 19th Century, Romantic infatuation with the „Orient”, which we see in (the young) Goethe’s example, and which is not strictly islamic, but can also manifest more innocently in admiration for ancient Persia, Egypt or India. Examples are Nietzsche (who called his biggest work after Zarathustra) and the brothers Schlegel, Schelling and Schopenhauer, who all studied and admired India and Hinduism.

    4. From the mid 19th Century, profane strategic thinking and imperialistic great power rivalry, in which (then weaker) islamic allies were believed by European statesmen to come in handy in competing with other European powers.

    When observing history, we see f.ex. that Friedrich the Great was an early admirer of Islam. This can partly be explained by ignorance due to safe geographic distance, combined with staunch Protestant antagonism (point 1) towards Orthodox Tsarist Russia and the Catholic Hapsburg empire, who were both historic arch-rivals of the Islamic Ottoman Turkish empire, which was the leading islamic empire of its time. The hope was also to find a strategic ally against Austria and Russia, by the old adagio “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    It was applied in an even more pragmatic way by Disraeli, ending in the Crimean War, where Britain and France, for economic and strategic interests, sided with islamic Turley against Christian Russia. The German Kaiser Wilhem made the same move in WWI, and Hitler in WWII, but the perceived „common enemies” had changed by now, who were now Western democracy, Communism and Jews.

    Also Napoleon’s pro-islam stance is less strategic, but more due to antagonism against Christianity, and connects very well with his contemporaries Voltaire and Lessing. The motivating force here was rationalism. Because islam conquered the ancient centres of Greek, Persian, Egyptian and Syrian scientific knowledge, like Alexandria, Antioch and Jundishapur, and forced the scientist working there to convert (on the threat of instant death otherwise), it could incorporate this thinking, and even bring it back to the West through Cordoba, with the legacy of Aristoteles as clear example. By the 13th Century, theologic dogmatism had stiffled any further scientic inquiry in the islamic world, making Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Ibn Sina (Avicenna) exceptions and outcasts in their own societies., The Mongol invasion of Bagdad gave the final blow. By then, the West had started to catch up, ad With Reconquista of Cordoba in 1492, the outcome was sealed.

    However, the ancient conception that the Orient was more advanced (which ceased to be true after 1500 AD) remained alive int he West far into the 20th Century, and was, oh irony, finally being disposed with by the mass-immigration of moslems into the West, who in no way turned out to be „more advanced” than the members of the receiving host societies.

    The infatuation with anything „exotic” (point 3) seems to be a unique trait of Whites and East-Asians, maybe due to the fact that living in a cold climate under high achievement pressure makes one long for the „easier” life of warmer climates.
    It manifested first in the Romantic time of the 19th Century. Goethe himself developed further and left this young exotism behind when he started writing his „Faust”, and also other thinkers like f.e.x Schiller and Schelling of that time moved on while reaching a more mature age.

    Unfortunately, while having observed young German women holding billboards saying „refugees welcome” in 2015, one gets pessimistic about the ability of mos of us to grow up from this.

    In essence, Western-Europeans need to find back to their Christian roots in order to survive. It’s something Americans managed to keep, maybe due to lackof cultural „alternatives” in their young pioneer society, and Russians and Eastern-Europeans rediscovered, after having experienced the nightmare of atheistic communism.

    They could therefore set the example.

Comments are closed.