Migration: Give an inch, take a mile
The German story shows how the immigration problem has a tendency to snowball. First a guest worker (who will likely never return to lower wages in his home country), then his family, then their family, then the second generation, the third, and so on, who in turn become left-wing voters and form ethnic activist organizations to undermine the native European majority.
The inevitable economic underperformance (poverty, unemployment) and higher criminality (requiring extra policing) of the new populations then in turn pull the heartstrings of ethno-masochist Whites who, believing the fraudulent blank-slate propaganda concocted by the likes of Franz Boas or Stephen J. Gould, blame their own people for the failures of minorities. Thus the native majority loses its moral self-confidence — highly-important given the European propensity towards idealism. Turkish organizations in Germany naturally allege that failure to integrate is largely a result of lack of European openness and generosity (the relative success of European or East Asian immigrants is left unexplained).
Thus the Muslims are given German passports, even when their home countries continue to adhere to an ethnic concept of citizenship under which, where possible, second- and third-generation immigrants to Europe automatically retain their nationality of origin. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan for example has urged Turks in Germany to not assimilate, calling it a “crime against humanity.” King Hassan II of Morocco once said on French television:
Hassan II: I would not like for [Moroccan immigrants] to be subject to an attempt [to integrate them] because they will never be integrated.
Anne Sinclair: You believe that they don’t want to [integrate] or that the French reject them?
Hassan II: Will they ever say that they can’t [integrate]? [Integration] is possible between European peoples. The foundations are the same. [. . .] There is nothing you can do about it. They [Moroccans] will be bad Frenchmen. [. . .] I am discouraging you, concerning my people the Moroccans, from attempting any deformation of nationality, because they will never be 100 percent French. I can guarantee you this.
Yet, as the non-European population grows, so does the pressure on politicians like Kohl, Schröder, and Merkel to “make the best of it” by granting them citizenship, recognizing their culture as an “integral part” of the nation, and creating a multicultural dictatorship criminalizing all dissenters.
Merkel herself has certainly changed emphasis over the years. She was elected as an opponent, like Kohl, of Turkey’s joining the EU. As late as 2010, Merkel said multiculturalism had “utterly failed.” French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron shortly thereafter made similar statements but none followed up with systematic policies.
Why did German culture change?
Historians will long disentangle the various causes of the current migration crisis and the German government’s response. No doubt these developments are partly haphazard — the chaotic aftermath of war in Libya and Syria, the ease for corporate elites of “going with the flow” especially when this lowers wages, and the need for politicians to manage an emerging human fact of growing migrant and minority communities.
However, the background to this — the big picture — has been ongoing change in elite and mass Western culture, and in particular German culture, since World War II. As the leader of Germany’s Turkish community gloated on the revelations of Chancellor Kohl’s defunct remigration plan: “Today’s political class would never get away with that sort of thing. That’s progress.”
German elite culture has changed from one which assumed an ethno-national identity to one with no identity at all besides administrative: German nationality, far from implying any shared blood or heritage, means only ownership of a passport. Germany as a proposition nation. No doubt some German comrades will be able to tell us the details of how exactly this happened.
Indeed today across the West, anyone defending ethnic European interests or even the ethno-national principle in general is liable to slandered as a Nazi. But what is striking is that, even after 1945, German leaders like Schmidt and Kohl retained ethno-national reflexes. This is somewhat remarkable. Hitler’s defeat was accompanied by terror bombing, ethnic cleansing, mass rape, the indefinite partition of Germany, and abolition of German sovereignty. French historian Dominique Venner has argued that the atrocities against German civilians were “of an ideological nature. It was not simply a matter of demoralizing the German people, it was also a matter of punishing it and preparing through terror the re-education of the survivors.”
This effort was successful. In the face of the enormity of the disaster befalling their nation, postwar German leaders, precariously living under Soviet-American military occupation, understandably inverted their political culture towards an anti-Nazi national consensus, so that foreign powers would never again have reason to so destroy their country. In West Germany, once all National Socialists had been purged or “de-Nazified,” the occupied German leaders drafted a Basic Law (Grundgesetz) which simultaneously proclaimed the sanctity of freedom of conscience and of political opinion, and allowed for the systematic persecution of sincere National Socialists and indeed all those who express nationalist or revisionist thoughts.
Thus is the paradox of the Federal Republic: A remarkably democratic and lawful state in many respects (Rechtsstaat), as only the famously-rigorous Germans can build, and yet one where nationalist speech and activism, more than anywhere else in the West, is systematically persecuted. Indeed, German journalists officially believe (as I have heard their trade union boss say publicly) that their role is to suppress and propagandize against nationalist and right-wing ideas. So much for “liberal” Germany’s vaunted freedom of thought.
And yet, it is striking that despite the Federal Republic’s ostensibly anti-Nazi and anti-racist constitution, West Germany continued to long follow the ethno-national principle concerning immigration and citizenship, and that senior leaders such as Schmidt and Kohl could be so politically incorrect.
Germany’s shift towards a rootless, cultureless conception of nationality is no doubt generational. Those raised by the “anti-Nazis” — those taught to believe that their grandfathers were uniquely evil and that all the Allies’ crimes (including the burning alive of German civilians and the rape of German women) were fundamentally excusable — have gradually come of age. The apparent peace and prosperity of the Federal Republic makes the nationalism and racism of their grandfathers appear all the more incomprehensible.
There has also been, and I do not think this point can be overemphasized, a general Americanization of European and German elite and popular culture. As the German rock band Rammstein has pointed out: “We’re all living in Amerika.” To a very significant extent, elite culture throughout the West is international. For example, in the academic world:
[B]ecause of the vastly greater numbers of researchers and resources committed to research, American social science has had a leadership role throughout the world. Open any textbook in the social sciences, whether in America or elsewhere in the West, and you will find that the great majority of the research cited is by American professors, with British professors a distant second.
Attitudes at elite academic institutions in the U.S. therefore become the ideal for the social sciences throughout the West. Liberal academics from other countries are welcomed in academic societies. But if, for example, a Norwegian academic society began to promote research and teaching with strong overtones of ethnonationalism, it would be expelled from international academic societies and excluded from having a presence at academic societies in the U.S. The hierarchical structure and international scope of academic societies make them particularly valuable resources in ethnic competition. Jews understood this and have made the most of it.
The result is that the university as a very prestigious, elite institution has become a central manifestation of the hostile elite that is now dominant in the U.S. and throughout the West. (“Liberal Bias in Academia“)
Thus, Germany is also subject to the cultural forces documented The Culture of Critique. In the case of Germany this link is actually direct. While the Jewish-German community is now almost non-existent, the most prominent official intellectual of the Federal Republic and the European Union is none other than Jürgen Habermas, a Marxoid member of the Frankfurt School.
I am not in position to disentangle the contribution of the local post-1945 anti-Nazi establishment in Germany as against foreign, especially (Jewish-)American, cultural influence in Germany’s abandonment of ethno-national identity. No doubt both played a significant role and are massively intertwined. The extent to which Germans I have spoken with have adopted left-wing and American ideas, mostly because they are fashionable, is somewhat shocking.
A culture rewarding betrayal
This is the German cultural context, embedded in the wider Western one, which is pushing in the same direction. Elite media opinion in the West has been overwhelmingly in favor of immigration. This has included German business, an enormous coterie of Jewish commentators who also overwhelmingly support a racially-Jewish State of Israel and a Jews-only immigration policy (Gregor Gysi, Bernard-Henri Lévy, Jacques Attali, Jan Gross, the head Rabbi of France, the Union of French Jewish Students . . .), and various non-Jewish figures thoroughly embedded in globalist power structures (Joschka Fischer, Thomas Piketty, and legions of non-Jews taking advantage of the career opportunities available for those who espouse neoconservatism . . .).
In such a context, advocates of European displacement receive considerable cultural and reputational rewards. The Economist, the voice of deracinated liberal elites everywhere, has hailed “Merkel the bold” for “brave, decisive and right” action on refugees. And as the Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland has argued in an article entitled “Mama Merkel has consigned the ‘ugly German’ to history”:
If history can offer a more dramatic turnaround in the perception, and perhaps reality, of a nation, then it’s hard to think of it. Seventy years ago Germany was a byword for tyranny and murderous violence: the land of racial supremacism and unending cruelty. That association lingered and has never quite gone away. Hitler, the Nazis and the apparatus of the Holocaust remain lodged in the global folk memory.
“Global folk memory,” Freedland does not point out, is to a significant extent manufactured in Hollywood and in Anglo-American media. Put another way, there are serious, even existential reputational costs to offending the Jewish-American community. This is why German history is so demonized in the public eye — as opposed to Ottoman-Turkish history, Soviet-Jewish history, or indeed Israeli-Jewish history. More generally, the importance for a country of having a good image in the Western world and in particular the United States, cannot be overemphasized. Only very great nations, such as Russia, can risk going head on against Western imperial power.
Freedland — a Jew, a self-styled “liberal Zionist,” and the executive editor for the liberal British Guardian newspaper’s opinion section — incidentally also peddles the genocidal lie that Germany’s lack of children make the migrants economically attractive:
Germany has pragmatic motives for taking in refugees in vast numbers. The country has a serious demographic problem: it has the world’s lowest birthrate, failing to produce the workforce that might provide for an ageing society. By one estimate, Germany would need to bring in 533,000 immigrants a year just to hold steady. In this light, it makes self-interested sense that Germany would only too gladly welcome Syrian engineers, doctors and graduates — all with proven energy and resilience — who are bound to infuse the country with new vigour.
The obvious truth is the exact opposite: the Germans’ infertility and rapid aging makes it especially dangerous for to be importing so many military-age young men and fertile young women.
The French-Jewish writer Éric Zemmour — probably the most nationalist figure allowed in French mainstream media and, I would argue, in many respects a useful one — has also eloquently spoken on Merkel’s reputational and cultural incentives:
Yes, Mama Merkel, the pride, the glory, the honor of Europe, the future Nobel Peace Prize-winner, the incarnation of a continent of mommies who cannot bear the photo of a dead child. The European press have crowned Angela the First as Empress. [. . .] The Germans are great, the Germans are good, the Germans are generous. It is no longer question of criticizing them for their accountant’s insensitivity towards the Greeks, still less of portraying them as SS men or wearing a spiked helmet. [. . .] The photo of a refugee child wearing a German policeman’s cap for protection has replaced in the collective consciousness the photo of another child in the Warsaw ghetto, terrified by the threat of the German Army. Before history, Merkel is playing for high stakes. Through a remarkable media Blitzkrieg she has erased Hitler, Wilhelm II, and even Bismarck. [. . .] Meanwhile German executives are seeing their dreams realized: massive cheap and malleable labor will replace in their factories the little blond boys that the native women did not produce. This economic cynicism and this rights-of-man romanticism join together, in a vision they think is humanistic, of an individual without roots, without attachments, without a past, nor a culture, an interchangeable producer and consumer. In a few hours, Angela Merkel has taken on the historic responsibility of destroying a centuries-old Germany and of transforming it definitively into a multicultural country. The 800,000 refugees will have children. Thousands of men see Germany as America was seen in the nineteenth century. But who in the end will play role of the Indians?
Conclusion: Training the New Elite
One lesson of all this, as ever, is that mere conservatism is not enough. Hitler famously said that a worldview can only be effectively opposed by another worldview and, whatever his faults, he was surely right in this respect. The misgivings of Schmidt, Kohl, and indeed 1980s German society as a whole concerning Turkish immigration might be deemed the healthy reflexes of old men. But they were not a worldview, not a forceful, articulated, and adhered-to vision of the world and how it should be.
Creating and disseminating a new, scientifically-grounded, and evolutionarily-adaptive worldview is our role in the nationalist and identitarian Right. We must prepare the ideas which will inhabit the future elites who will rule and redeem the West. In the Kulturkampf (culture war), we can salute and be encouraged by the work of Thilo Sarrazin, whose Germany Abolishes Itself sold over 2 million copies — in a country of 82 million. This means an astonishing 2.5 percent of the population may own this book, which lays out the cultural, genetic, and cognitive realities of Afro-Islamic immigration probably as explicitly as German law could allow. The public has a real hunger for long-suppressed truths.
And yet, as evidenced, by Merkel’s actions, Sarrazin’s direct influence on public policy (like that of The Bell Curve in America) has thus far apparently been close to nil. We have our work cut out for us. But this work is useful, as Pierre Sautarel, publisher of the French nationalist Fdesouche website, has remarked:
[T]he propaganda on the migrants is surpassing the intensity of Je Suis Charlie. [. . .] I have never seen anything like it. [. . .] The “fascisphere” [an ironic name for nationalist alternative media] is Asterix’s village in this ocean of lies. Without the Internet, [mainstream] propaganda would work because you would think you were the only clear-headed one and you would give up. . . . That is why we are useful.
And work we must. After World War II, President Charles de Gaulle told the youth of Germany they were “Kinder eines großen Volkes” (“children of a great people”). We can scarcely imagine Western civilization at all without the Germans, without the Franks saving Europe from the Moors, without Luther and Beethoven, Hegel and Nietzsche. Today still, Germany is the heart of Europe. In saving each nation, we save us all.
A Jewish journalist, Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s former wife, who once said she would never marry a non-Jew.
See Guillaume Durocher, “Éric Zemmour on the Suicide of France,” North American New Right, May 14, 2015. http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/05/eric-zemmour-on-the-suicide-of-france Éric Zemmour, “The Rise of the Shoah as the Official Religion of the French Republic,” The Occidental Observer, May 12, 2015. http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/05/eric-zemmour-the-rise-of-the-shoah-as-the-official-religion-of-the-french-republic/