Globalisation as War Against Man

The Islamization of Europe may be viewed as the fulfillment of a dream that was shared by Adolf Hitler, but which began long before he arrived on the scene.

  • Save

Globalisation as War Against Man

Part 1: The Genesis of Euro-Islamic Racism

by Hans-Peter Raddatz

Translation by Rembrandt Clancy

1. Enlightenment Prelude

The barbaric events in the East and the silence of the “elites” in the West suggest the necessity for a fairly close analysis of the underlying motive factors driving both situations. Such, however, should not remain on a surface level, but look into the causes which make it possible for the modern age to accept without feeling the mass murder of Christians and Yazidis in Syria and Iraq. No less a reason than this, so one might think, do the European security forces have for curbing the radicalisation of Muslim immigrants, who no longer attack “only” public establishments, — above all churches, synagogues and social welfare offices, — but also people, primarily indigenous juveniles.

Of course we know that since 2005, the EU, the OIC and the Islamic UN have been implementing a detailed politico-media programme for the Islamisation of Europe, which has been fuelling the ongoing abolition of democracy in the EU countries and increasing the infiltration of its institutions. However, a new dimension of official toleration for Islam’s hostility toward citizens and Christians is becoming recognisable; it is assuming an ontological character and cannot be explained as mere propaganda. For a half century, the “dialogue with Islam” has been making the persistent demand “not to strive for what separates, but to seek commonality”, therefore we should take the “dialogue with Islam” at its word and identify the commonality which the EU elites bring to it: that without a popular mandate, they are opening the continent up to Islam and making its teachings into guiding principles for European culture.

Since massive immigration and the extensive mosque-building in Europe are not the manifestation of a Zeitgeist, but are rather a matter of a long-term transformation in world-view, two perspectives offer themselves to begin with as suitable approaches to this phenomenon: first, there are the “dialogue” outcomes, which appear particularly precious to the participants; and second, the politico-religious familial resemblance between Islam and Europe which has been unfolding since the Enlightenment. During this time the European elites have become fascinated by their own robust conception of the culture of Islamic despots, whose violence was to vanish behind their putative cultural achievements.

Nor has there been an inclination to admit the ambivalent stance of the arch-Enlightener Voltaire toward Islam and its messenger,[1] much less acknowledge the open collaboration between Hitler and the Muslim Brotherhood, who, after the “Führer’s” campaign in the East and the ignominious end of the war, allowed many SS members, in their flight from the allies, to escape to the Near East and facilitated the construction of clandestine networks. It was very difficult for leftist opponents of the regime to criticise this, for even the Soviet Union hastened to set up points of liaison in the East; and in so doing, Stalin, just before his death, invited Amin al-Husseini (d. 1973), the Mufti of Jerusalem and friend of Hitler, to Moscow.[2]

General de Gaulle followed up by rescuing Husseini, still an active Muslim Brother, from the US war crimes tribunal, and appointed him co-ordinator of a Franco-Islamic political alliance. That Husseini’s pupil and the father of terrorism, Yassir Arafat, marched armed and under standing ovation into the UN General Assembly in 1974 and later received the Nobel Peace Prize, can hardly come as a surprise, given this background of elitist high esotericism.

In order to conceal all this over the long term, and for the purpose of effecting participation in the benefices accruing to the developing “intercultural dialogue”, there came surely enough just at the right moment the patent of anti-fascism, that esoteric panpharmacon against all disagreeable civil, democratic and ecclesiastical vicissitudes. According to this narrative, it was not Mohammed who had taught jihad, the Islamic holy war, to the Muslims who are in reality peaceful, but fascism, — a version of events which has been in circulation almost uncontested until today.

Such notions have roots which we shall recapitulate briefly. In 1797 Napoleon, the Enlightenment’s field commander and enemy of the Church, insisted on conducting a campaign in the East. It took him by way of Alexandria and Cairo to Syria. To win over the Muslims, he displayed his knowledge of the Koran and feigned a temporary profession of faith, proving that he too was an expert at the Islamic technique of deception (taqiyya). His intention to bring Muslims Western science foundered on the mistrust of the Koranic scholars, and especially came to grief at the hands of LordNelson, who traced Napoleon’s fleet to Aboukir and blew it up with the exception of two frigates.

Napoleon, who was no dreamer, is nevertheless a singular case of that strange fascination for the East, which takes possession of many occidental leaders. Even the author of this article has been in position to observe it in many Westerners active in Islamic countries. In the nimbus of almost unlimited power, the atheistic Frenchman believed himself inspired by Islam to be the founder of a religion, who, with a Koran in hand composed by himself,[3] intended to drive the British out of India and unite the entire Orient with the true Europe, the French Europe.

2. Hitler and the Racial Dialogue

What came of it is well known: the Turks and insufficient provisions stopped the eastward dream in Syria, and the British stopped the European nightmare at Waterloo. However, an obsessive fixation with the East appeared to have been irreversibly set in motion; at first, it spread quickly to the British, and later afflicted the other great powers, Russia and Germany. After Lessing’s ‘Nathan the Wise’ [Nathan der Weise] and Goethe’s ‘West-Eastern Diwan’ [West-östlicher Diwan], the literature and philosophy of the Romantics, with their whisperings of Eastern mysticism, added even more of a charge to the colonial competition of the 19th century. In Germany’s case, it found fatal expression when Hitler laid claim to English racism as the prototype for Germany’s Aryanism and professed the Crown colony of India as a model for “Lebensraum” in the East: “What India is for England, the territories to the East will be for us”[4] (Sarkisyanz, Emanuel. Hitlers englische Vorbilder [“Hitler’s English Inspirers”], 12 — Ketsch 1967).

All of this had its parallel in the technology of power, the Koran, which later caused the “Führer” to regret not having read it more carefully. Not only did he think Mohammedanism would have allowed him to win the war, but it could have filled him “with enthusiasm for paradise” (Picker, Hitlers Tischgespräche [“Hitler’s Table Talk”], p. 110 — Berlin 1999).

In this sense, it is fundamentally contrary to the truth, according to Hitler, to impute terrorism to the Mohammedans, who focus solely on “hope of bliss”, Mohammedan terrorism being rather a “Jewish doctrine spread by Christianity” (ibid., p. 258).

Here the anti-Judeo-Christian will to power of Islam could be combined with a master race [Herrenrasse] — in this case, the Aryan — to form a flexible race ideology: productive, which is to say, race-hygienic expansionist policies could be pursued, according to the “Führer”, by the adoption of the English idea of a class of master rulers [Herrenmenschentum][5], but with respect pre-eminently for Confucius, Buddha andMohammed, who together offered “an undeniably broad spiritual basis for the religiously minded” (ibid., p. 508).[6] Therefore, it is not advisable to interfere in the daily routine of these people; rather, it is wise — following the centuries-long, well-proven Anglo-model — to train into their elites, “the leading local inhabitants [Einheimischen]”, a thinking and behaviour which “makes them forget that they work under foreign rule” (ibid., pp. 622ff).

Besides a wealth of additional instructions, this selection of references suffices to expose the current so-called cultural dialogue as a racist monologue with strong Nazi elements. It prescribes for public debate the permanent “eye to the Right” [7] [Blick nach rechts], because otherwise its Hitlerian foundation would come to light all too blatantly, for its essential dogmas follow the “Führer’s” credo almost to the letter.

It must be stressed first of all, that English racial imperialism departs from the foundational concept of ethnicity. It passes over into a notion of remote, almost godlike dominance, which demarcates the elites as a separate “race”, as a human-species sui generis. It distinguishes itself ontologically from the mass of all other people, who only appear to be human beings by virtue of their Gestalt, but like Jews, “Negroes” and women, they are not really people. For this elite race, legitimation is superfluous, because it is destined to rule; it rules because it is superior, wealthy and English. As is becoming apparent, Islam’s ideology of dominance feeds on the same ontologically racist[1] impulse, albeit veiled in pseudo-religiosity.

Such was the motivation behind the central stipulation of the Germans — even beforeHitler — to emulate the English prototype with an Eastern, Anglo-Aryan, Germanic paradigm of rule. Carl Peters (d. 1918), co-founder of German Imperialism and Social Darwinism, went to the heart of the matter:

“I was fed up with being counted among the pariahs and wanted to belong to a master-race”.[8]

As a man of letters, [Ernst Freiherr] von Wolzogen (d. 1934) half seriously and half satirically came up with something better:

“Learn from the Englishmen … how as an obedient Herrenmensch[5] one translates the will to power into action. (Sarkisyanz, loc. cit., p. 6)

With the expression “obedient Herrenmensch”, Wolzogen had coined a logo which applies to all forces in the service of power, being true of the entire Janus-faced species of philosophers, professors and profiteers of all time who fashion the message of power from “above” and convey it to the masses “below”.

Parallels to the Nazi-related “intercultural dialogue” begin with the ontologically racist guarantee in the Koran that the believers belong to “the noblest nation that has ever been raised up for mankind” and therefore this nation is not only justified but obliged “to enjoin justice and forbid evil”. (3/111 [Sura 3:110, Koran. Trans., N. J. Dawood]).

Settling these people in Europe through unending immigration within “authentic” cultural colonies, supporting them with massive social security benefits and networking them with subsidised mosque building, belongs to red-brown politics; that is, it is post-socialist and multivölkish. With its avant garde, “obedient Herrenmenschen”, it implements a selective, anti-democratic coercive tolerance. It is as much hostile to the citizens as it is to science, because it both dismantles accumulated civil liberties and forces the sciences into line [gleichschalten[9]] with its Weltanschauung, above all the sciences of Near Eastern Studies and Ethnology, which yield all too damaging findings on the racial-imperial history of Islam.

At the same time the simpler players, who do not see via their own ideology and act only reflexively, frequently take on a manner of speech which is closely adapted to the jargon of the “Führer”. Thus on one occasion, the cadre functionary, Albogha, an activist with Turkish religious affairs, castigated the German Orientalist, Tilman Nagel, who, — as an “old-established” scientist (following Hitler; that means a scientist among the “local inhabitants”), — took upon himself the anti-sharia right to interpret the authoritative texts of Islam (Nagel, Angst vor Allah?, [“Fear of Allah?”], p. 381f., Annotation 2). With this, Albogha himself was apparently unaware that he himself violated the “dialogue” dogma requiring the distinction between Islam and Islamism.

Nevertheless, Albogha finds himself in the best of company, for the English model rulers also know how to treasure the advantages of the Koran when it comes to the technology of power. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair announced on the website of the Labour Party (3 March 2006):

“The most remarkable thing about reading the Koran … is to understand how progressive it is … It is practical and way ahead of its time in attitudes to marriage, women and governance” [For original speech, cf. The Foreign Policy Centre].

That the Koran’s “practical orientation” has dire consequences for the Muslim woman, as well as for European non-Muslims in the Islamic expansion, looms on the horizon with the beginnings of civil war in the cities, emphatically placed against the background of the killing routines in the “Islamic State”. By deeming in line with the dialogue that this violence has “nothing to do with Islam”, and that it is only its “misuse”, its activists prove suitable to the practice of Islamo-racism.

Consequently, criticism running counter to the system, or even resistance, signals the extremely serious psychological deviance of Islamophobia, which requires political correction through therapeutic indoctrination. If the dissidents insist on the old-cultural democracy and science, they appear as “agitators and racists” in the eyes of the dialogue players, whose tunnel-vision grants them no thinking room — as has often been said, “there is no alternative”,[10] — but it forces them to project their own radical state of mind onto everything which does not correspond to their template of “permitted and forbidden”. In order to preclude any doubt about the matter, they circulate the mantra that “Islam is not the problem”, which automatically brands non-Muslims with ontological guilt.

Being that “Islamophobic” resistance against the Islamocentric diktat is the problem, the “dialogue” acts as a quasi-Islamic institution, which reactivates Hitlerian racism. For just as the Jews at that time incurred guilt for not being Aryan, so the servants of Islam today are developing an increasing animosity toward the civil population who are becoming all the more guilty, because they comply much too slowly with the demands for conformity masked as tolerance. With the notion of a “phobia”, the psyche asserts itself as a substitute for logic, for if in the absence of an obsession with the enemy, a real culpability were to arise, and thereby freedom of speech, then the dialogue activists would be speaking of culpophobia.

3. Islamisation in the Cultural Monologue

The “dialogue” proves to be a monologue of the ‘no alternative’ type, command-speech preparatory to violence, which with endlessly repeated stereotyped routines unobtrusively conveys itself into the action system of the German dictator which was thought to have been of the past. After Blair had made the Europeans take to heart their deficit in a sufficient reading of the Koran, a charismatic competition developed for the prize in obedient master-rulership [Herrentums]. It penetrated all institutions and in the meantime also split the Vatican into factions of doves and hawks. That the former promoted “reading the Koran properly” appears to be a natural consequence.

Playing a leading role are “scientists”, who guard against drawing the stigma of racism which attaches to the “local inhabitants” [Einheimischen], or one might call them the “old-established” or perhaps even “aboriginals” [Ureinwohners]. Angelika Neuwirthoperates differently. She understands the Koran as “written notes and not just the result of a process of annunciation”; she sees it as “an open and unbiased drama”, nothing less than “a unifying European inheritance”. Thus as a standard bearer she can allow, in an Islamically correct manner, the Koran to become indigenous to Europe; for, “from an historical perspective we live … not in a Judeo-Christian, but in a Judeo-Christian-Islamic Europe” (cited in Nagel, loc. cit., 31 Note 24).

Having been trained in such a way, and now also training others in the same way, the author belongs to the “leading local inhabitants [Einheimischen]” and fulfils Hitler’s condition of causing herself and others to forget “that they labour under foreign dominance”. We know that the Koran, its tradition and the sharia constitute a millennium of practical knowledge for Muslims, and we do not impute to FrauNeuwirth any conscious fraudulent intention regarding Islam as an alternative project for the West, because for her there remains “no alternative” but self-oblivion [Selbstvergessenheit]. Nevertheless, she renders a valuable contribution, because her invention of the expression “unifying inheritance” makes the affinity between the Euro-Islamic fusion and Hitler’s plea for Mohammed as an “undeniably broad spiritual basis”more comprehensible.

However, when she arrives at the conclusion of a “Judeo-Christian-Islamic Europe”, she is describing a situation corresponding systemically to the initial situation of Islam in the East, which cannot be encompassed by her idea of “written notes”. For at that time too, there prevailed a Judeo-Christian-Islamic constellation, which in the following 1,400 years, gradually shed its Judeo-Christian elements. Today, with the help of the “Islamic State”, it is freeing itself from the remnants of foreign faith and will soon have fulfilled the Koranic vision of unadulterated Islam.

Continue reading ?

Posted in Terrorism and tagged , , , , , .