Angela Merkel: Europe’s Basic Message is “Humaneness”. Viktor Orbán: Close the Borders.

Earlier this month Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin. Hungary and Germany are polar opposites on the migration issue, so it’s no surprise that the two leaders could agree on only blandest of generalities concerning immigration into Europe.

The following video shows the press conference held by Mrs. Merkel and Mr. Orbán after their discussions. If you can dig your way through the Mutti-speak used by Angela Merkel, you’ll notice the essential difference between the two leaders: Chancellor Merkel’s most important concern is “humaneness” towards the migrants, while Prime Minister Orbán focuses on national sovereignty, border security, and the protection of the Hungarian nation.

Many thanks to Ava Lon for translating the German, to CrossWare for translating the Hungarian, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Welfare Chauvinism in Europe?

Another descriptive lecture from Dr. Turley:

He mentions “welfare chauvinism” coming of age in the paradigmatic shift occurring among center-left parties in Europe. Whoo-whee, Bubba, I thought only us knuckle-dragging EverTrumpers believed in that concept.

Sometimes I feel like a motherless child…other times, I feel like the world is in a barrel, twisting and twirling over Niagra Falls.

Leftists Untie!

The Poor Are Always With Us…

Our Israeli correspondent MC sends these thoughts on the cultural (and moral) foundations of wealth-creation.

The poor are always with us…

…But it is the arrogant who are the real enemy

by MC

Most Islamic countries are poor. They are poor because their religion is a religion of poverty, based as it is on a system where every nuance of a person’s life is dictated by somebody else, thus imprisoning a person’s free will. Even Saudi Arabia with all its wealth in the cities has a real problem with poverty outside the cities.

Most communist countries are riddled with poverty, too. Communism does not encourage wealth-creation except as graft and exploitation amongst its elites. Communism, too, imprisons free will.

Innovation is a prime product of free will, and it is the ability to innovate that generates wealth and civilization. Countries can create their own essences of civilization and export them, others can be gross importers of civilization if, and only if, they have the ability to buy into civilization, otherwise they too are poor and backwards.

Gaza, for example, buys into limited civilization by exporting and exploiting a victimhood culture which plays on the heartstrings of the West to such an extent that the West then exports the bounty of its own civilization to expiate a ‘guilt’ that it perceives when duped by the illusions of abject poverty and victimhood portrayed by the media’s white-guilt propaganda.

But guilt money does not relieve the cause of any of the poverty, especially when the cause of that poverty is Islam or socialism.

The Gulf states have oil. So do the USA and Russia, but the Gulf stuff is cheap and plentiful. So Islam has a rich uncle who can buy influence. Saudi Arabia is like a spider sitting at the centre of a web of intrigue: Islamic intrigue, the intrigue of the wealthy barbarian.

If the West has a vulnerability, it is its denial of its own culture; its denial that the Judeo-Christian basis of the West is superior because it allows the individual the free will to innovate. When one denies the cultural basis of the West’s success, one becomes vulnerable to having one’s behaviour coerced, and in the case in question, coerced by bribery. Saudi Arabia has found that it can use its oil revenue to buy a place in the West’s cultural sunshine. Not only that, it can use its wealth to have the civilization upon which it depends slaughtered as unbelievers — as Islam demands.

Western cultural nuances are ubiquitous across the world, and many have adopted the products of Western culture: phones, bicycles, televisions, tee-shirts, shoes, cars, buses; the list is endless. This is amazing flattery if, we would just be humble enough to stop and think about it. No other culture has contributed anything close to it.

But Marxism has effectively destroyed Christianity. When one can see a Pope actively working a communist manifesto, then one must assume that Christianity is in its death throes. Whether or not the revolutionary theology that the current Pope has brought with him from South America is KGB-inspired is difficult to determine, and the truth may only come out when it is ancient history.

Continue reading

From Szczecin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, a Razor-Wire Curtain Has Descended…

Immigration-related events are moving rapidly this in Europe summer. The situation is in such flux that now would be a good time to step back and try to get an overview of the process.

Three years ago the dead baby hysteria, followed by Chancellor Merkel’s invitation to the world (“Y’all come in and set a spell, bitte!”), launched the Great European Migration Crisis. Since then I’ve read hundreds of news articles and analyses about the flow of “refugees” and the reactions to their violent and fragrant arrival in Western Europe.

After digesting all that information I created the following map, which presents my subjective evaluation of the different approaches to migration by various European countries. I’ve rated the policies of 28 different countries (the EU 27 minus Croatia, plus Switzerland) on a scale from 0 to 100, from zero (red) for the open-borders attitude of the “Welcoming Culture” to 100 (blue) for the absolute refusal of mass migration by the Visegrád Four (Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic). Data from the last six months weighs more heavily in the score assigned to each country — for example, Spain and Italy recently changed governments, which has strongly affected each country’s migration policy.


Immigration policies in Europe, Summer 2018 (Click to enlarge)

The grouping of countries based on their stance on migration bears a striking resemblance to the division of Europe into East and West by the Iron Curtain. This is especially true if we roll the clock back three months — back then Italy and Bavaria would have been quite red. And the analogy becomes even more apt if we remember that Austria was occupied by Soviet troops until 1955, which gives it one foot in the Eastern camp.

The biggest change in the past three months has been the formation of a new anti-immigration government in Italy. The “xenophobia” of the East Bloc has now broken through the razor-wire curtain and gained a foothold in Western Europe. No wonder EU politics is in such turmoil! After failing to contain the “anti-European” attitudes of Poland and Hungary, Brussels now has to contend with Matteo Salvini. Italy is one of the “big four” pillars of the European Union, so its defection to the anti-migration side carries enormous significance for continental politics.

The situation is metamorphosing rapidly, but before we analyze the process of change — the “delta”, as they say in the military-industrial complex — let’s go over the snapshot of current European migration policies.

The Visegrád Four

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was the first major European political leader to (1) understand the larger significance of the refugee crisis of 2015, and (2) act rapidly to counteract the nexus of globalist actions that threatened the stability of the Hungarian state. In doing so he made himself an obstacle to the no-borders coalition, especially the “American philanthropist” George Soros. The reaction to Mr. Orbán’s building of the fence helped clarify the East-West divide, and strengthened the solidarity of the Visegrád Four. Each country now supports the others’ positions, and each vows to veto any action by the EU (the European Commission requires consensus to implement a sanctions regime) that would harm the other members. Taken individually, each V4 country is no match for Germany or France, but when they act in concert the four countries become a formidable thorn in the flesh of the Brussels oligarchy.

The movement of Italy and Austria (and even Bavaria) towards the Visegrád Four position allows Hungary to — as Barack Obama has so frequently said — punch above its weight.

Austria

The most recent Austrian election resulted in a coalition government headed by Sebastian “Boy” Kurz (ÖVP) as chancellor and Heinz-Christian Strache (FPÖ) as vice chancellor. Mr. Kurz may well be a cynical opportunist who has simply trimmed his sails to the wind, all the while remaining loyal to his mentors in the Davos crowd. However, to maintain his position he has to give at least the appearance of acting decisively to deal with the migration issue — hence the recent law targeting “radicalization” in Austrian mosques (see Christian Zeitz’ analysis). Part of that appearance will of necessity include the reduction of violence and disorder brought to Austria by Muslim immigrants. Any failure to achieve discernible results will endanger his chancellorship. For that reason one may expect him to stay the course, at least for the time being.

Mr. Kurz’ alignment with Italy, Hungary, and Bavaria bodes ill for Chancellor Angela Merkel and the mandarins in Brussels. A counterweight to their power is forming on their southeastern flank, and the resulting political crisis looks to be the most turbulent since the fall of the Iron Curtain and the reunification of Germany.

Italy

The new coalition government in Italy is shaking the very foundations of Barad-dûr in Brussels. The Five-Star Movement is more or less a traditional populist party, but the Lega Nord is full-on anti-immigration. Interior Minister Matteo Salvini has hit his stride early, turning back the refugee ferries and threatening to impound any NGO “rescue” vessels that make port in Italy. Unlike Chancellor Kurz, Mr. Salvini has never changed his tune — almost ten years ago, when I first started paying attention to him, he was the same anti-migrant firebrand that he is today. He shows no sign of being cowed by threats from Brussels; it’s no wonder that emergency summits are being hastily convened in reaction to him.

Since the new government was formed, the Lega has shot ahead of the Five-Star Movement to become the most popular party in Italy. If another election were to be held, Matteo Salvini would most likely end up as prime minister.

Eastern Europe

When I use the term “Eastern Europe”, I refer to the Baltic republics, Romania, and Bulgaria. (The Visegrád Four plus Austria comprise Central Europe. Strictly speaking, Moldova, Ukraine, and Belarus could also be considered Eastern Europe, but their political affairs are more closely associated with Russia, whether for or against, so I’m leaving them out of this analysis.)

Eastern Europe has the good fortune not to be attractive as a final destination for migrants — their welfare benefits are much less generous than those further west, and they are less reticent about dealing harshly with the criminal proclivities of foreigners. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have the added advantage of being largely off the route for most of the migration flowing into Western Europe.

Bulgaria and Romania have their share of migrant camps, full of angry, resentful Third-World “refugees” who are impatient to get out of those Black Sea backwaters and into the promised land of Germany or Sweden. The crime and disease the migrants bring with them spills out of the camps and into the adjacent towns. News outlets in those countries are blessedly un-PC, so the word gets out, and members of the general public who may once have been indifferent are now becoming anti-immigrant.

Continue reading

The Bulldog Is Waking Up…

A short, pithy, rousing speech by UKIP Leader Gerard Batten MEP to his confrères at the EU Parliament in Strasbourg:

And now Soros finds he’s been foiled by the changing political winds. Imagine: financial acumen doesn’t translate into political genius. Who knew? Certainly not ol’ George, who has watched his keen foresight take a tumble. Perhaps he’ll learn to live with not being God?

Or maybe not. After all, he’s got enough to buy a few nukes of his own. A Soros scorned may be a dangerous animal indeed.

Hat tip: Steen

Too Many Mistakes: The EU is Staggering into the Abyss

The following article from a German news site discusses the warning signs of catastrophe in the European Union. It was translated by Rembrandt Clancy, who includes extensive contextual notes.

Too Many Mistakes: The EU is Staggering into the Abyss

The EU is staggering from one mistake to the next. In this form, a political union hardly has a chance of survival.

by Ronald Barazon

Translated by Rembrandt Clancy

Deutsche Wirtschaftsnachrichten
20 May 2018

The weaknesses of the EU are becoming all too obvious in recent days:

  • the EU is helpless against US policy;
  • Brexit negotiations are proceeding;
  • in Italy, an EU-critical coalition is assuming control of the government;
  • in Hungary and Poland, opponents of the EU are in government;
  • the EU Commission presents an unusable budget draft;
  • with the General Data Protection Regulation, the regulatory delusion produces a total meltdown.

Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that many are already predicting the end of the EU. There is no recognizable initiative that could save the “European Integration” project. The duty of the Community to secure peace in Europe is being pushed into the background. Unreasonable rules and regulations are spreading vexation and dissatisfaction, which trigger anti-EU slogans, ultimately leading to anti-EU governments. The anger over absurd regulations combines with a still deeply rooted nationalism among many citizens. In Europe many gravediggers of the EU are at work. This development is made possible by three decisive factors:

  • The actors see only their actual or supposed interests and do not recognize the harm threatening all Europeans without exception.
  • The EU in its current form is a defective construct, which precludes an effective policy: 750 members of parliament and 28 Commissioners — soon to be 27 — are unable to make useful decisions simply on account of their sheer numbers. That need not even take into account that the Parliament and the Commission can decide nothing without the consent of the 28 governments, 27 in the future. Such a construct is unworkable, inevitably inefficient and therefore also ineffective.
  • Even the EU-friendly parties emphasise nation states and thus differ, in the final analysis, only marginally from the nationalists who reject European integration. Also most pro-European citizens’ initiatives do not call the state into question and they barely strive for a factually integrated Europe.

Hence nothing will change. The problems threaten to become a permanent crisis with a catastrophic outcome. For purposes of illustration, a number of mutually related themes follow.

The punitive tariffs against China, which also affect the EU

The US is collecting punitive tariffs of an additional 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum and still plans to do the same with other goods.

Initially the EU begged for a postponement until May 1st and now it has negotiated a further deferment until June 1st. At present it is being haggled over.

A compelling trade policy would have consisted in the immediate imposition of counter-duties. As a consequence, the EU would have had a position of strength in the current negotiations and would have been able to negotiate a reasonable tariff regimen whilst offering concessions to the USA. Now they have become supplicants and are considering how the World Trade Organization (WTO) can be called in. WTO procedures are generally known to last from years to decades.

One of the reasons for this is that even within the Commission itself, the responsibility for customs is distributed among several Commissioners. This shows the absurdity of appointing 28 Commissioners (after Brexit 27), because each Member State must nominate a Commissioner and for each Commissioner a function is needed. As if that were not enough, each country’s government has a voice in the decisions; hence a US president like Donald Trump can turn the EU into a marionette.

The sanctions against Iran

Europe is incensed that the USA has cancelled its nuclear agreement with Iran. In return for Iran’s assurance not to build atomic weapons, the economic sanctions had been anywhere from relaxed to abolished. The EU absolutely insists on a continuing co-operation with Iran, citing economic interests as justification; they would like to realise projects involving billions of euros.

Since Thursday [17 May] there has been a singularly strange initiative: EU-Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker intends to punish European firms should they comply with US sanctions against Iran. Having been moulded by many sets of regulations, it appears that thinking in the Commission is determined exclusively by punishment categories; except, the United States prohibits companies who violate sanctions from being economically active in the USA or from exporting to the USA, and it imposes penalties as applicable. This is ruinous for many companies who therefore submit to the diktat of the USA. That the EU then still threatens them with a penalty is absurd. The issue has no effect on companies lacking interests in the US market.

For Europe the development taking place in the Near East is clearly irrelevant: Iran will have good opportunities, after the armed conflicts have ended, of becoming a major power whose territory extends to the Mediterranean. A change in the balance of power is also emerging, which would also have to be of interest to Europe, especially as Russia consistently emphasises her friendship with Iran and is active in Syria.

Also the tweets of the “Supreme Leader” of Iran, Khamenei, are obviously not read in Europe. Only hours after the conclusion of the nuclear agreement on 14 July 2015, Khamenei commented on the agreement with a tirade of abuse against the West. This posture led even the Obama administration into putting the brakes on implementation of the “nuclear deal”[1] and they maintained a portion of the sanctions.

Continue reading

George Soros Wants the EU to Borrow Money to Pay for Unrestricted Migration into Europe

Update: The full text of Mr. Soros’ remarks is now available with no paywall restrictions. I’ve included the text as an addendum at the bottom of this post.

An alert reader emailed us with the latest from the prominent “American” “philanthropist” George Soros:

George Soros has published a new article. It is paywalled, but the Hungarian version is not.

In the article he recommends a Marshall plan for Africa, and he seems to recommend acquiring the money for it by putting the EU into debt.

He also says, among other interesting things (and whining against Orbán):

“My opinion has always been that refugees must be distributed strictly on a voluntary basis. Member states must not be forced to take them in, nor must refugees be directed to countries where they don’t want to go.” (my translation)

This is the diametrical opposite of what he proposed just thee years ago, when he said, among other things:

“First, the EU has to accept at least a million asylum-seekers annually for the foreseeable future. And, to do that, it must share the burden fairly — a principle that a qualified majority finally established at last Wednesday’s summit.”

Our Hungarian translator CrossWare declined to translate the source document linked above — she said she didn’t want to help Mr. Soros spread his [expletive redacted]. Instead she volunteered to translate this report from the news portal 888.hu:

The “philanthropist” Soros would have Europe take out a loan for the reception of migrants

George Soros has had another perverted collection of ideas. According to him, he has now come up with the latest idea for money-laundering, because he is afraid of the European Parliament’s defeat of the immigration forces he supports, by the patriotic forces in agreement with Viktor Orbán. That is why, before it is done, the US billionaire wants to pull tens of billions of dollars from EU pockets to move migrants in bulk to Europe.

The American billionaire, who only communicates with the world through open letters, speaking declaratively of the EU’s migration plans which now being threatened with failure, reappeared with one of its favorite cannons: the EU should take out loans for the supply and reception of migrants. Soros would resolve the migration crisis by allowing more migrants, moreover, at the expense of EU taxpayers.

“How to Save Europe?” — this is the ringing title of the billionaire’s opinion piece, where he slipped his demand for money into a glaze of honeyed drool.

Surprisingly, Soros also explains why he came up with his latest plan. The great financial conspirator is very afraid of the victory of the anti-immigration forces of European nation-states, as represented by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, at the next European Parliament election. Therefore, if he could, he would do a little business on the migrants with the EU until then.

“In Hungary, Viktor Orbán based his campaign on falsely accusing me of flooding Europe and Hungary with Muslim refugees. Orbán is now defending his own Christian vision of Europe. This vision is in contrast with the EU principles,” writes the probably desperate Soros, who is the self-proclaimed defender of the EU’s non-established principles.

The financial construction advertised by Soros, “giving Marshall aid to Africa”, is essentially about making financial resources available to Soros in the amount of 30 billion euros annually from the European Union, to support the import of African migrants (he calls them “refugees”) into Europe.

Continue reading

Sweden: The Death of a Nation

Our Swedish correspondent Svenne Tvaerskaegg sends this gloomy overview of the political situation in Sweden with a multicultural apocalypse rapidly approaching.


Stackers at Stornäset sawmill, Sundsvall, 1912 — Somalis in Sweden, 2012

Sweden: The Death of a Nation

by Svenne Tvaerskaegg

Like a drunk the morning after a magnificent binge, Sweden is slowly waking up to the grim reality of the past few decades as a humanitarian superpower and the hangover is going to be of monstrous proportions.

The Swedes were a privileged people. Their hard-working Lutheran forefathers handed over to their keeping a wealthy, modern, homogeneous and well-functioning Scandinavian nation with one of the highest standards of living in the world. Their future was secured; they had all a people could wish for. And they completely squandered it.

The damage recent generations of Swedes have wreaked on their own country is almost beyond comprehension. Coming generations of Swedes will inherit a country in shambles and struggling with insurmountable problems. Ghettos, crime, segregation and ethnic strife are now the hallmarks of the once progressive nation. And perhaps the worst thing of all for the grandchildren of today’s Swedes: in the second half of this century they will in all likelihood be just one competing minority amongst many in what was once their own country. It will be a country no previous generations of Swedes would recognize — poor, shabby, Middle Eastern and African in appearance and dominated by Islam.

What went wrong for the Swedes was they became infected by what author Tom Wolfe called “radical chic”, revolutionary romanticism. The 1960s generation of spoiled middle-class rebels in their Che Guevara T-shirts completed their degrees in social sciences and feminist studies and went on to careers in politics, education and the civil service. Many of them went into media and journalism. Their solidarity with the oppressed of the third world knew no bounds, and from their positions of power and influence they could put their revolutionary romanticism into practice.

Sweden’s coffers were opened to third world revolutionary movements and their charismatic and radical young leader, Prime Minister Olof Palme, flirted with left-wing dictators and subversive groups across the globe. It was a heady time. By decree Sweden became multicultural, the borders were thrown open to mass immigration and the decay started. The fervor with which the revolutionary romantic elites pursued their goal was practically religious in character and tolerated no dissent. Politicians promised voters that mass immigration enriched Sweden; it brought economic and cultural wealth and made their country a much better place. State television and the press abandoned their critical role and trumpeted the same official message.

A few cautious dissenters raised warning voices but were soon shouted down. They were hung out in the media as “racists” and “xenophobes”. Ridiculed and vilified, they lost friends and jobs and were sometimes even hounded out of the country.

One early and high profile dissident was the university lecturer and Swedish member of parliament for the Liberal party Mauricio Rojas, himself an immigrant to Sweden from Chile. As the Liberal party spokesman on refugee and integration matters, he saw the damage uncontrolled third world immigration was doing to Sweden and warned the Swedes the path they were following would inevitably lead to disaster unless there was serious public discussion and radical reform. The retaliation was swift. Publicly branded a “xenophobe”, he was held up to public derision in the media. He received death threats from left-wing extremists and was put under 24 hour guard by Säpo, the Swedish security police. The campaign of character assassination continued unabated for months afterwards and demands were made for his removal from parliament. Unable to live in the country any longer Mauricio Rojas left Sweden forever and took up a position as a university lecturer in Spain.[1]

Continue reading

László Földi: “The Majority of European Politicians are TRAITORS!”

The following panel discussion is from Tuesday’s Hungarian TV program “Szemtől szembe” [Face to Face]. The moderator is Balázs Somorjai, and the guests are the intelligence analyst László Földi and Zoltán Lomnici, Jr., a constitutional lawyer.

The discussion among the three men concerns the Great European Migration Crisis — its origins, causes, and intended effects. Cui bono? Who stands to make a profit from all these illiterate unemployable Muslim migrants, and how?

A civil, lucid, and reasonable discussion such as this one is all but unheard of west of the Iron Curtain. Many thanks to CrossWare for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

The End Times of Albion: Will the Green Flag of Islam and the Black Flag of Jihad Soon Fly Over Downing Street?

The essay below by Seneca III is the first in a series of follow-ups to his recent piece on “The End Times of Albion”.

Will the Green Flag of Islam and the Black Flag of Jihad Soon Fly Over Downing Street?

The End Times of Albion, Part 2

by Seneca III

The recent furor over the immigration status of some of the Windrush generation and the subsequent humiliating resignation of Home Secretary Amber Rudd has thrown up a disturbing scenario with the appointment of Sajid Javid as the replacement Home Secretary.

Sajid Javid is a one-time significant player in the 2008 global financial collapse where, as a senior investment banker, he was at the heart of the credit trading business and was responsible for structuring an emerging-market synthetic CDO as well (allegedly) as junk mortgages that incurred millions of dollars’ worth of losses for investors. He is extremely intelligent, well-educated, financially astute, presentable, experienced in public office and a real master of the four pillars of Islamic deception — taqiyya, tamriya, maruna and kitman.

Unlike the wretched, semi-literate, affirmative-actioned, linguistically challenged and grandstanding Sadiq Khan whose only talent is an ability to take a modern, culturally advanced metropolis and turn it into a third world hell-hole, he is not an also-ran when it comes to a Muslim power grab but a real and present danger to the UK.

Note his over-exaggerated ‘Power Stance’ as adopted by so many of the arrogant scum we have elected to govern us:

Thus, in brief, consider this: Jeremy Corbyn, whether he remains leader or otherwise, has shown us where the rancid soul of the modern Labour Party abides, and it is not a pretty sight. Theresa May likewise for the Conservative party, as the Brexit debacle has so painfully demonstrated. Consequently, both having alienated a significant percentage of their faithful, neither party has much hope of forming a majority government. Hence Corbyn and May have a very limited time left before their desperate apparatchiks will be done with them and look elsewhere in order to keep their collective Gadarene snouts deep in the public trough. This begs the question as to who will replace both of them, either soon or, perhaps, the second time around after another failed ‘Buggins’ turn’ hopeful has been summarily ejected from the hot seat.

With that thought in mind I must admit that I have no idea as to who is standing hopefully in the Labour Party wings awaiting the moment of their political sanctification; nor do I care. That Party, for which my working-class parents voted most of their lives until it became so unrepresentative of their hopes and dreams that they simply walked away in tears, left me with a consummate anger and, other than during the Blair-Brown interregnum , I have paid little attention to them beyond a nodding acknowledgement of their most frequently headlined outrages.

However, the Conservative Party is another matter entirely. I became a Tory voter and even a card-carrying member and remained so until 1990 when the Party committed regicide and shattered my dreams, as those of my parents had been shattered before me, but I have been keeping a close eye on them ever since whilst carrying two suitcases filled with despair; I have watched them circle around the drain and then commit ethno-cultural treason on a near biblical scale… all of which brings me back to Sajid Javid, who now appears on their horizon as the newly-anointed one. There can be little doubt that as a Muslim, Javid will be appointed in the expectation that he will garner the majority vote of the now huge and electorally corrupt Muslim demographic in the UK, as Cameron so yearned for in 2014…

David Cameron has said he wants to see a British Asian Prime Minister in his lifetime. Mr. Cameron made the remarks at an awards dinner in central London where Sajid Javid, the Culture secretary who is widely tipped as his successor, topped a power list of the most influential Asians in the UK.

Mr Cameron told the GG2 Leadership Awards: “Let us think big about what Britons of all backgrounds can achieve. “When I hear ‘sir’, ‘your honour’ or ‘right honourable’, I want them to be followed by a British Asian name.” To cheers he added: “One day I want to hear that title ‘Prime Minister’ followed by a British Asian name.”

Earlier Mr Cameron had described Mr Javid, who was in the audience, as “brilliant” during his 10 minute speech, which celebrates achievement among Britain’s Asian community.” — Daily Telegraph, 05 November2014

…and then step into Downing Street where — metaphorically speaking in the beginning at least — will fly the green flag of Islam alongside the black flag of Jihad?

Interlude — The Sukuk scam

2nd July 2014 — London Stock Exchange today welcomes the listing of the UK Government’s first Islamic bond, or Sukuk. The listing is the first for a country outside the Islamic world and raised £200m on orders totalling more than £2billion. To mark the occasion, Government Ministers Sajid Javid MP — Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport and Minister for Equalities! (note that this Ministry had nothing to do with government finances or the markets beyond the use of its own budget), and Andrea Leadsom MP, Economic Secretary to the Treasury opened trading in a special Market Open Ceremony at London Stock Exchange this morning.

“We’re delighted to welcome the UK Government ministers to open our markets this morning. The fact that the UK is the first country in the Western world to launch a Sukuk bond, and the exceptional demand for the bond highlights London’s standing as the world’s leading international financial centre. It also shows that confirms the UK as a key destination for foreign, Shariah-compliant financial products and institutions.”

Continue reading

Send in the Idiots

Below is the latest essay from the inimitable Hans Heckel, this time on the financial shenanigans of the EU elites.

JLH, who translated the piece, includes this note:

This is an analysis of, among other things “European” versus “German,” a rather different view of Macron than we are getting here, and a continental view of educational “mainstreaming” (and fun with politically correct euphemisms).

The translated essay from Preußische Allgemeine Zeitung:

State of Fools

How the sand got into the gears, why we can’t waste time, and why the schools are expected to produce idiots.

The Satirical Week in Review

by Hans Heckel
April 21, 2018

Everything used to be simpler. 10, 20 or 30 years ago, when the EU wanted more money from German taxes, it only had express the wish to Bonn — later Berlin. The reply was friendly, and possibly with a solicitous query, “Could you use a little more?” The Bundestag politely stifled any objections. Basta.

Sand first drifted into these well-oiled gears with the save-the-euro shields. Resistance stirred within the Union [CDU/CSU], but even more within the FDP. Nonetheless, the party heads put their agenda through. For the Liberals [FDP], with a deadly result: So many FDP voters defected to the brand new AfD in the 2013 Bundestag elections that the FDP dropped out of parliament. When French President Emmanuel Macron announced his next big fishing expedition in German financial waters a year ago, the FDP remained reserved. Shortly thereafter it returned to the Bundestag with fanfare, while the Union fared badly and, to top it all off, the AfD took over as lead opposition.

That is the situation everyone has to adjust to. Everything mixed up.

Macron wants a European finance minister with an independent budget and a European currency fund. Further on the wish list of the southern European countries led by Paris are a bank union, a debt union and especially a common deposit protection fund through which Germans with savings accounts would help failed Italian banks.

Should the Grand Coalition simply agree to this, as it has done before, AfD and FDP would be the big winners. This calls for skillful handling. CDU/CSU say they want to put on the brakes. The Greens leader Annalena Baerbock sees this as sacrificing European solidarity, and so does the Euro-politician Elmar Brok and his party friend and EU commissioner, Günther Oettinger (“unacceptable”). Even the SPD has a part in the drama: Andrea Nahles is with Macron, while the new minister of finance, Olaf Scholz, on the contrary cites the doubt about what the skeptical voters would perceive and reward as a defense of German interests. To all the theatrics Angela Merkel says nothing, as usual.

From a distance, this looks like a real disagreement. And it is intended to, so that no one who voted for the Grand Coalition parties senses betrayal of his interests as a German taxpayer and savings account holder, and drifts into opposition.

Closer inspection reveals a significant detail. The critics within the Grand Coalition are only asking that satisfying Macron’s appetite, i.e., putting the Paris proposals into effect, should be slowed down. There is no question of a simple “No.”

In other words, the “critics” want to chop this indigestible entree into little bites and offer it to the German mouth piece by piece. That way, it won’t stick in the throat and the Germans will swallow it down. The end result is the same.

It works! So why are Brok, Baerbock and Co, so excited? It is the time problem. There may not be much time left for the bite-size method. Italy’s banks are teetering. Like the “Monte dei Paschi.” Which is said to have loaned an estimated 50 billion euros to people whose names no one knows. The word is, the money is as good as gone. At some point, the time will come when schlepping bankruptcy along will no longer work. Other Italo-banks are said to be deep in the debt morass — as good as done for. When there is a crash, which can happen at any time, someone has to pay the piper. And what does Macron need? He wants to make big reforms, but doesn’t have the money to soften it so his people don’t climb all over him. So he badly needs money, too.

There is no time to waste. Oettinger and Brok know that. They are sitting in Brussels and nervously watching the sweat-covered foreheads of their Italian colleagues.

And these two are Germans, which makes a significant difference. If an Italian politician goes to the EU, he acts as an Italian who wants to get as much from the EU as he can for Italy. If a German politician goes to Brussels, he acts as a “European,” who can get from Germany as much as he wants to for the EU.

As things are now, whenever the failing Italian banks go under, they should be “saved” by Rome or their Italian shareholders. What a scandal that would be! What an uproar! It would be good only for the populists. It would be far more “European” and far more “common-good” to take the money from a security fund made up of rock-solid German savings accounts. Right?

Continue reading

A Dystopian Masterpiece: Jack Vance’s “Wyst: Alastor 1716”

Notes from the Baron:

The following review by Thomas Bertonneau discusses Wyst, one of the finest novels written by the late Jack Vance.

Long-time readers know that my nom de plume is taken from Jack Vance’s work — not from a character in his fiction, but from an imaginary writer, scholar, and commentator named Unspiek, Baron Bodissey, who provided the (sometimes lengthy) disquisitions on history, sociology, and political economy that appeared as footnotes in the novels.

The cover of Wyst shown below is not from the currently available version of the book, but from the original published by DAW Books, the first printing in 1978. I scanned it from my own Vance collection, and then de-yellowed it.

A Dystopian Masterpiece: Jack Vance’s Wyst: Alastor 1716

by Thomas F. Bertonneau

Towards the end of a long life, the American genre writer — and merchant seaman, jazz-man, and master of many trades — Jack Vance (1916-2013) produced an amusing autobiography entitled This is Me, Jack Vance! (2009); the book also carried a parenthetical and apologetic subtitle, Or, More Properly, This is I. In the subtitle Vance takes a jocund swipe at grammatical pedantry, and therefore at pedantry and Puritanism generally speaking, but he also affirms his passion for order, of which grammar is the linguistic species, without which (order, that is) freedom and justice, both of which he held as dear as anything, would be impossible.

There are a number of scholarly anthologies devoted to Vance’s authorship and at least one book-length single-author study of his fiction, Jack Rawlins’ Dissonant Worlds of Jack Vance (1986). It is a pity, however, that no intellectual biography of Vance exists. This is Me gives the essential details of its writer’s curriculum vitae, but it is largely bereft of information concerning Vance’s artistic-philosophical formation. So is Rawlins’ study, although it remains otherwise useful. If only, like Henry Miller, Vance had written his version of The Books in my Life! Concerning Vance’s artistic-philosophical formation, however, one might plausibly infer and arguably surmise a few probabilities. A writer is liable to be a reader, a prolific writer a prolific reader. A merchant seaman, as Vance remarks in his autobiography, finds himself with a good deal of time on his hands. Vance, who had briefly studied English at the University of California Berkeley, spent long stretches at sea during the Second World War, with a good deal of time on his hands. Two plausible guesses in respect of books that would have impressed themselves profoundly on Vance as he passed his time in their company are The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas père and The Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler.

The Count of Monte Cristo would have supplied Vance with a plotline, that of righteous and carefully plotted vengeance against arrogant and powerful offenders, which he used in his own brilliant way many times. Two books of Vance’s Alastor trilogy, Trullion (1973) and Marune (1975), are vengeance stories, as are all five volumes of The Demon Princes (1964 — 1981).

As it did for F. Scott Fitzgerald, Henry Miller, and the science fiction writer James Blish, among innumerable others, The Decline of the West would have deepened Vance’s sense of meaning and large-scale patterning in history; and it would have stimulated his interest in the comparison of cultures. In Spengler’s theory of the Great Cultures, as he called them, each Great Culture has a distinct physiognomy (Spengler’s term) that imprints and flavors its institutional manifestations and pervades the mental outlook of its every individual. A major element of Vance’s fiction is to establish through detailed description the distinct physiognomies — or as he calls it in a coinage of his own, the esmeric — of his fictional worlds and their societies. The Decline would also have honed Vance’s sensitivity to the crisis of European civilization, just as it had for Fitzgerald and Miller. Once again, the breakdown of social structures and the descent of civilization into renewed barbarism interest Vance almost obsessively. Vance’s authorship contains many other signs of Spengler’s background presence, not least in its tendency to insert extended philosophical discussions, sometimes as footnotes, into the unfolding story. In Vance’s later work, commencing with The Demon Princes, references occur to a certain “Baron Bodissey,” who seems to have been the Spengler of the settled cosmos, or the “Gaean Reach,” in the long-colonized solar systems of which, and among immensely old societies, Vance’s stories tend to occur. Spengler saw his Great Cultures as living entities. Vance’s Ecce and Old Earth (1991) quotes Bodissey’s study of “The Morphology of Settled Places,” in which he argues that “towns behave in many respects like living organisms,” a decidedly Spenglerian proposition.

Wyst: Alastor 1716 (1978), the third installment of Vance’s Alastor trilogy, falls somewhat outside the vengeance pattern of its two precursor installments although its denouement entails an act of supremely satisfying justice. Part of Wyst’s interest lies in the fact that it instantiates Vance’s knack for dystopian satire, the object of the satire being in this case the phenomenon of socialism, with its cult of egalitarianism. Before getting into the details, however, of Vance’s Spenglerian critique of the welfare state, a bit of context urges itself. The Alastor trilogy takes its overall title from its cosmic setting — Vance’s “Alastor Cluster.” As Wyst’s prefatory chapter explains, “Alastor Cluster, a node of thirty thousand live stars, uncounted dead hulks and vast quantities of interstellar detritus, clung to the inner rim of the galaxy with the Unfortunate Waste before, the Nonestic Gulf beyond and the Gaean Reach a sparkling haze to the side.” Of the thirty thousand solar systems that constitute the Cluster, three thousand are inhabited. The word alastor, not at all incidentally, stems from an ancient Greek name for an avenging spirit. The protagonists of Trullion and Marune indeed act as agents of retributive desert, but in matters of private offense. In Wyst Vance invokes justice rather than vengeance. In the early chapters of the novel, Vance’s protagonist and point-of-view character Jantiff Ravensroke functions as a perceptive visitor to and observer of the planetary “Egalist” society of Wyst. Readers gain their sense of Wyst’s cultural physiognomy through Ravensroke’s experiences, as he attempts to assimilate himself in a new and in many ways shocking environment. In the later chapters of the novel, while becoming increasingly involved with his new acquaintances, Ravensroke functions as a responsible citizen of the Cluster who feels the moral compulsion, at rising risk to his life, to report to the highest authority about wicked machinations unfolding on Wyst concerning which he has apprised himself. Ravensroke’s visit to Wyst, which he had undertaken for artistic reasons, becomes an ordeal and, pitting himself against a murderous conspiracy, he discovers his capacity for heroic action.

The highest authority in Alastor Cluster resides in the office of the Connatic. In the Connatic, Vance has taken a somewhat preposterous stock figure from pulp-era science fiction — the sovereign of a stellar empire, as in Edmund Hamilton’s Star Kings or Isaac Asimov’s Foundation trilogy — and reinvented it in his own masterful way. The Connatic, who rules the Cluster from a towering architectural complex at archipelagic Lusz on the planet Numenes, incorporates traits from Shakespeare’s Henry IV and from the Stoic emperor Marcus Aurelius. Like Henry IV, the Connatic sometimes goes in disguise among his people in order to discover their disposition. Like Marcus Aurelius, the Connatic is a philosopher who is nevertheless prepared to act, having at his command an immense and super-competent diplomatic corps and the “Whelm,” a potent military force. In the opening chapter of Wyst, receiving four representatives of the Egalist society in his tower, and being criticized by one of them for his “position of unnatural privilege,” the Connatic replies: “I am I, who by reason of events beyond my control am Connatic. If I were someone else, I would not be Connatic; this is indisputable.” In that hypothetical case, however, “He, like I, would ponder the singularity of his condition.” The irascible ambassadors know not what to make of it. They take up again their crass demands on behalf of their world. The Connatic, whose name implies the cognitive faculty, knows these petitioners for precisely who they are. Vance bestows on the Connatic an encyclopedic knowledge of the planetary societies that he oversees and a near-instantaneous and deeply penetrating intuition in respect of character-nuance and political implication. He, too, is practiced in the Spenglerian art of physiognomic tact.

That Ravensroke should come to the attention of the Connatic partakes of the inevitable. Vance has endowed on Ravensroke artistic percipience, curiosity, and openness to experience so that, in a novice’s way, he resembles the Connatic in his talents. Ravensroke originates on the many-islanded largely aquatic planet Zeck at a place called Frayness, where custom dictates that those entering on adulthood declare a profession and begin to fashion themselves to live by it. (In other words — the usual way of life!) Ravensroke finds that he cannot declare for any customary profession, although his family would like him to do so, but he knows himself to possess a contextually eccentric talent for landscape and portrait and he would like to cultivate it. One night, in order to escape the tension with his parents and siblings, Ravensroke appropriates the family houseboat and steers it to a remote place. At dusk, while “water moths fluttered among the leaves,” Ravensroke hears from the sea “the sound of quiet voices in measured discussion.” The “sea-voices” elude clear audition: “The meaning… always just evaded intelligibility.” These susurrations haunt Ravensroke, to use Vance’s verb; and his acknowledgment of them indicates both his attunement to the world and his talent for attentive, non-egocentric awareness of his environment.

It is during his solitude that he learns fatefully of Wyst. Someone has left a copy of The Transvoyer, presumably a newspaper, on the table in the houseboat’s kitchen. A front page headline refers to “THE ARRABIN CENTENARY,” Arrabus being the inhabited continent of Wyst, and the story having been filed from Uncibal, “the mighty city beside the sea.” According to the story, which in hindsight appears to be rank Egalist propaganda, the people of Wyst live in a “dynamic society, propelled by novel philosophical energies.” As for the Arrabin goal, the article describes it as “human fulfillment, in a condition of leisure and amplitude,” which the society has achieved “by a drastic revision of traditional priorities.” On the other hand, as readers later learn, Arrabins not only disdain but anathematize anyone who “wants to do something… extraordinary and individualistic.” That would be “non-mutual” and “mutualism” is a major tenet of Egalism. The extravagant ideological claims of the journal article exercise less compulsion on Ravensroke, however, than the article’s reference to “the remarkable light of the sun Dwan,” under the luminosity of which “every surface quivers with its true and just color.” The aesthetic allure wins him over. He resolves to travel to Wyst to refine his skills as a painter and photographer.

Continue reading

Why is Merkel Opening the Borders Anyway?

Rembrandt Clancy has translated (and provided an introduction for) a speech by a member of the AfD (Alternative for Germany) named Maximilian Krah, who describes the destructive policies of Angela Merkel’s government and the likely future of the CDU.

Why is Merkel Opening the Borders Anyway?

The Cause of Merkel’s Policy and the Alternatives

by Rembrandt Clancy

But a madness has quite clearly befallen these people, meaning their actions would otherwise cause healthy intelligence guided by experience to say, ‘Hands off!’

                                    — Maximilian Krah

INTRODUCTION

About the Author

A new personality has emerged in Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party. He seeks to find the underlying commonalities and causal structures below the surface play of disparate political policies and cultural disruptions which follow from them. Dr. Maximilian Krah was born in 1977 and lives in Dresden with his wife and family of six children. He is a Corporate Lawyer with a Doctor of Laws (Dresden) and an MBA (Columbia, London). He is a partner with the law firm of Weiler Krah Petersen LLP (LinkedIn).

In his capacity as corporate lawyer, Dr. Krah has represented the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), founded by French Roman Catholic Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1971. The SSPX are a worldwide traditional Society of priests who reject the “reforms” of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). Being largely independent of local bishops, with their 104 schools and six seminaries they are probably the largest single counter-revolutionary force within the post-Conciliar Church (cf. SSPX Districts Overview). Having been raised in the neo-Catholic Church, Dr. Krah’s gravitation toward the Society in 2003 is consistent with the metapolitical importance he places on the re-establishment of Germany’s cultural traditions as an antidote to globalism and the “popular cultural self-hatred” which accompanies it. Further detail on Dr. Krah’s biography and his controversial connection with the SSPX can be found in an interview which The Remnant Online conducted in 2012.

In September of 2016, after a long-standing and active membership in the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Dr. Krah left Angela Merkel’s party to formally join the anti-mass immigration AfD. In a German language interview with RT, Dr. Krah explains that he left the CDU on account of their policies on immigration, the energy transition (the abrupt nuclear phase-out) and CDU support for the social policies of the Social Democratic Party (SPD).

Dr. Krah holds no elected position with the AfD, but being a formal member of the party he represents them as a spokesman, especially at event-driven press interviews. He also delivers lectures on culture, politics and economics. All three of these fields are included in his talk ‘Why is Merkel Opening the Borders Anyway‘, or alternatively, ‘Why is Merkel the way she is?

Dr. Krah delivers his talk in an informal venue reminiscent of the German Stammtisch. It is entirely extemporaneous yet highly structured and easy to follow. It took place in Chemnitz, Saxony, on 11 January 2018. The subtitled video along with the English transcript are found below.

The Structure of the Talk

The Starting point: The Effect of Immigration on Indigenous Germans

The speaker begins with a question which at first directs attention away from Frau Merkel: Why do parents allow Muslim immigrants access to their underage daughters? He mentions Mia Valentin of Kandel who was fatally stabbed by her former boyfriend, Abdul Mobin Dawodzai, on 27 December 2017. He had threatened her and posted nude photos of her on the Internet; and although she had complained to the police (German Wikipedia), the authorities still failed to protect her. This case in particular has subsequently provoked demonstrations made up of the ordinary citizens of Kandel. Dr. Krah then places Mia’s murder in the context of a social engineering film produced on the children’s channel, Kika, which aims at children between three and thirteen. The channel is run jointly by the two German public broadcasting corporations, ARD and ZDF. The production is a romanticised documentary, filmed partly in a misty sepia, in which the 16-year-old Malvina, her young mind intoxicated with emotions beyond her control, narrates her damp-eyed infatuation with a Syrian immigrant, whom Kita had identified as being “about the same age” as Malvina (Die Welt). Originally planned as a series, it was discontinued after the first episode, which is still available on the Kika website for anyone who wishes to absorb the flavour of it. Dr. Krah makes reference to the film’s opening where a reclining Malvina reads aloud a love letter against the background of saccharine romantic music. Diaa pressures Malvina to dress modestly, eat halal and become a Muslim (cf. Breitbart UK). Much later in his talk Dr. Krah mentions the murder of 19-year-old Maria Ladenburger of Freiburg, a volunteer for asylum seekers who was raped and murdered by an Afghan who in 2015 was an “unaccompanied minor”. Maria’s Roman Catholic family was socially well-placed — her father being a high-level EU legal professional in Brussels — and used her obituary to request donations in Maria’s honour to be made to Weitblick (far-sighted) a “refugee” charity which attracts young people into its service and educates them about refugees (Express UK).

Based on these examples, which issue from the broad policy of mass immigration, Dr. Krah asks a question which determines the direction of the remainder of his talk: “What will immunise” these parents against beliefs which support open borders, the “arrival of foreigners who will never work in [Germany]”? There follows a second related question which derives from Frau Merkel’s background in the GDR: “What does a person believe who is formed in such a way?” Behind the answer to both of these questions emerges a very particular model of the state to which Maximilian Krah opposes what he elsewhere calls a “classically personal model of the state” which is rooted in das Volk:

The state proceeds from the citizens, from a people (vom Volk), das Volk is made up of those who are born into it or of a few who are married into it or of those who have assimilated into it or of those who have a feeling of belonging to it. That is something personal; the state is personal. And the elected representatives of this personal entity are responsible for seeing to it that all goes well for this collective and that it keeps going. […] It is in the Constitution and that is what we learned in school. The new mode centres on the entire world. […] Every individual is equal. The state is nothing other than a province in the world… (Maximilian Krah, Straight Talk, 21 November 2017, at 2:16:00 min. ff).

Other Policies

If the speaker broadens the discussion to the energy transition policy, climate change, the euro-rescue policy, the export economy and the subsidisation of southern countries, it is to demonstrate that they all have the very same underlying concept of the state as the open borders policy. This last policy, however, is the most immediately ascertainable, the most emotional and therefore the most galvanising (Straight Talk 1:20:55 min. ff)

The Fellow Traveller as a Vulnerability for the Established Parties

But there is still the question of “what drives these people” to the beliefs behind these policies? The answer is found in the fellow traveller (Mitläufer), a concept which is based on an artifact of the German electoral system which may be unfamiliar to many non-Germans. Dr. Krah specifies two types of fellow traveller, the true believer and the opportunist, although he does give them labels. The former is self-explanatory; an example being Heiko Maas, the Minister of Justice who designed the Internet censorship law (cf. Gates of Vienna). The Interior Minister, Thomas de Maizière, is an example of the opportunist, for which Dr. Krah offers a truly remarkable description of how he functions. But the opportunist is also found among the parliamentary staff (Mitarbeiter). All political parties in the German system hire their own publicly paid parliamentary staff who are also party members, a combination which gives them potential influence on the elected representatives they serve. In September of 2017, the period of the last German federal election, an RT interviewer suggested to Dr. Krah that the AfD, despite their entry into the Bundestag, were still a hopeless parliamentary minority of controversial types who on that account would have no influence whatsoever. Dr. Krah explained in English:

That is a big misunderstanding because what is the CDU and the SPD bringing together? [sic] It is that they have the expectation to get jobs. And as long as Merkel and Schulz cannot guarantee jobs any more for their party members, they come into deep problems and they are forced to change their policy. So if you have 14% of AfD in, and both big parties losing seats, you make a lot of […] a lot of pressure on the party leaders of the large parties to change their politics. So it’s very important that you take them away jobs [take their jobs away] because that’s what they guarantee their members. And that’s the big message from today [the September 2017 federal election], that they don’t guarantee their jobs any more. (cf Maximilian Krah on RT Intl in English, 3:38 min. ff)

Knowledge of these conditions makes Dr. Krah’s argument easier to follow. However, this particular vulnerability of the opposition parties did not work in favour of the AfD in the last federal election, as Dr. Krah himself explains in his talk. The effect was cancelled because the overall number of representatives in the Bundestag has increased substantially since the last election, an electoral artifact too complex to explain here.

Party Politics, Culture and Opposing Concepts of the State

The same conditions apply to politics at the state level. But there may be a temptation to dismiss Dr. Krah’s entertaining discussion of Saxon politics as too local to be of much value, but in Germany regional differences may point to broader political alignments in the future. For example, there has been much speculation about the fact that the AfD is much stronger in the former GDR states than in the former West Germany. The same was true of PEGIDA. One explanation points to regional differences in mentality rooted in recent history which in turn appear to shape a quite unexpected community of interest among peoples in different countries. In the Q and A, for example, Dr. Krah observes that prior to 1989 the East German communist regime spent money on culture. The communist government, he says, was like a “blanket of snow” covering a people who were still passing their culture on to the next generation, a phenomenon which also has its equivalent in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Moreover, the East Germans and the Visegrád countries have not experienced the “popularised cultural self-hatred” that has plagued the West like a “virus” since the 1960s. In the 1980s, Krah says, German instruction in a polytechnic grammar school in Karl-Marx-Stadt was superior to what could be found in a junior secondary school in Duisburg (Lecture with Q&A 50 min. ff).

Thus the same questions which demand a party-political response also require a cultural or metapolitical one; hence Dr. Krah addresses a long-term strategy for restoring the forgotten or latent old-culture of the West. For example, it is of the utmost importance that Germans learn how to sing again, once a required programme for Prussian elementary and middle schools. But singing, singing as a class and learning song texts by heart have all been abolished. Singing is part of, and also symbolic of a larger culture actively carried out and actually practised and shared by a people who, in song, not only “discover they are das Volk, they have discovered we are ein Volk… People must learn again that they belong together…” (Straight Talk 1:30:19 ff). Implicit in Krah’s cultural antidote to globalism is an inverse relationship between culture and madness (Wahnsinn), madness in the sense of delusion (Wahn), which also corresponds to ideology:

But quite obviously a [collective] madness has befallen these people, meaning their actions would otherwise cause healthy intelligence guided by experience to say, “Hands off!”

This passage from Dr. Krah’s talk has been somewhat broadly quoted, but with the word ‘collective’ inserted into it, perhaps inadvertently. The effect is to make explicit that the madness described is of epidemic proportions. The insertion originated with the well-known German blogger Michael Klonovsky, whom Dr. Krah mentions as offering his “solution” to the question of why the parents of Mia, Malvina and Maria have beliefs which bring them to compromise their daughters. The Klonovsky-solution is the focal point of the talk, for it offers a concise description of the content of the madness which many will recognise as part of their immediate metapolitical experience. C.G. Jung used the expression “psychic epidemic” to describe such collective phenomena. Offering National Socialism as an example, he outlines the preconditions for it:

But if there is no relation to a centre which expresses the unconscious through its symbolism, the mass psyche inevitably becomes the hypnotic focus of fascination, drawing everyone under its spell. That is why masses are always breeding-grounds of psychic epidemics, the events in Germany being a classic example of this. (Collected Works. Vol. 9, Part I, Princeton: 1971, par. 227)

Note: A few cuts were made to eliminate some microphone difficulties at the source, with no loss of thematic content.

Transcript

Why is Merkel Opening the Borders Anyway?

Continue reading