Wednesday, January 02, 2013

Europe and the Coming Caliphate: The Profit for Islam from the Reduction of Thought

Peter RaddatzBelow is the final part of a four-part translation of an article by Hans-Peter Raddatz, a well-known German author and scholar who specializes in Islamic issues. The original was published in issue Nr. 5/2012 October of Die Neue Ordnung (pdf; table of contents here). In it Dr. Raddatz discusses the most recent book by Bat Ye’or, whose writings challenge the “will to power” that is inherent in the melded ideologies of Islam and EU totalitarianism.

JLH deserves our gratitude for translating the entire series. Previously: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Hans-Peter Raddatz

Europe and the Coming Caliphate
The Systemic Background of an Important Book

4. The Profit for Islam from the Reduction of Thought

‘Europe, Globalization, and the Coming of the Universal Caliphate’ by Bat Ye’orThe clichés “Arab Spring” and “Outbreak of Democracy” were embarrassing to the traditional claim to power of the Muslim Brotherhood, which, since the founding of the Mediterranean Union, had infiltrated the candidate countries, from Algeria to Egypt, and their judicial systems. From the point of view of the dialogue, this is a stroke of luck, whereby half of the Arabic world is carrying out “peaceful regime change” in favor of its own immanent democracy. Since it is not clear how the Peace of Islam created despots and did not effectuate its democratic core, it is important to the Islamocentrism of the undemocratic leaders of the EU that the civilizing superiority of Islam lies in its efficient, totalitarian training of the masses.

Here the intrinsic family resemblance of the Euro-Islam elites appears, as documented in the Coming Caliphate, and — without the author delving any further into the ideological or socio-economic reasons — is described, with its radical tendencies in Islamic religious politics, as well as its aggressive euro-Islamic policy towards Israel. As will become clear from this paper, they are comparatively easy to prove and leave no doubt that Islamization “is a part of Europe”[1] because it is part of the totalitarianism of this age. Its configurations, which fluctuate between present and future, indigenous and alien culture, reticence and openness, have since WWII determined academic discourse as the driving force which advances Left-Right extremism under the cover of being harmless consumer and games coding. The in-depth totalitarian effect is seen in the affinity that can be deduced from the success of racist religions (Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism) and/or thought systems open to violence.

This constellation interacts with an unbridled, results-driven rationality, which, under the regime of monetary standardization, permeates the existence of the human being, and, as the procedural form of intellectual deconstruction, makes the individual consciousness useful to the networks of global productivity. Mass thinking attuned to work, consumption, entertainment, Islam, etc., is incapable of recognizing the enormity of the EU/OIC structural manipulation. The pertinent model is Luhmann’s self-reflexive reduction, for it must live up to a morality-free, universally sociological super-theory of reality, such that, as the acquisition of knowledge advances, the depth of ignorance also increases. This is supposed to be comprehensible to “the limited conceptual capacity of the human being,” which is only negative dialectically, that is, with the extinguishing of individual thinking and validation — ergo through unconscious acceptance of prevailing circumstances — a situation described in Islam as “no compulsion in religion.” (2/256)

Since self-reflexivity requires “not people, but functions” (Luhmann), it contributes to the disappearance of humanity of the older type. With the functionality of Islam, it advances the compulsory cultural-economic spiral. It functions in complexity, and the complexity — as a paradoxical endless loop or, alternatively, a blind spot in a reflexive observing of observation — is of use in acquiring and retaining power. It is the motor of relativistic multiculturalism, which is the major target of Bat Ye’or’s criticism. In the enforced tolerance arising from this multiculturalism, she sees the essential cause of the radicalization of democracy and the new Euro-Islamic elitist authority. Citing numerous examples, she winkles out its mafia-like structure and exposes the Islamization of Europe as a power play which is as epochal as it is deceptive.

The monetary effect does the rest, while Euro-Islamization and the EU-OIC fusion is fulfilled on the differential axis: acceptance-exclusion, democracy-dhimmitude, justice-injustice, Palestine-Israel, which — along with deception of the public, perversion of justice, squeezing the taxpayers, corruption and Utopia — are the reflexive results of the structural change. The “bailout parachutes” of the Eurozone are a testament to standardized money, which secures the global major investors as political co-regents and the stock holdings of the Islamic “co-owners.” Within this complex, the strict Good-Evil world of the Manichaean Gnosis is reproduced, separating the bad demiurges from the cosmic God and permeating the orthodoxies of Christianity and Islam, absolutism and relativism, as well as socialism, liberalism and capitalism. Standing in the wings of the System’s stage with the Gnostic God is Iblis, where Europe’s Islamization is made into a Blind Spot — which is made visible, however, in Bat Ye’or’s study. Thus she draws to herself the hatred of the activists, who really do not know that they are the fuel for a totalitarian apparatus (Karl Jaspers) which is building up an increasingly deadly momentum as forms of power and ideas of God become more nihilistic.

5. The Tradition of Power in the Network of Extortion

The pervasive ignorance in interculturally-dominated discourse seems to take shape with especial sententiousness in relation to oriental forms of governance. It is noteworthy in current theories of empire that besides the Romans, mention is made of the Chinese, Achaemenids, Mongols, Spanish and English — occasionally also the Jews as a “world conspiracy”, however, the Ottoman sultanate seldom and the Muslim caliphate never. And the caliphate — with its traditionally weak caliphs — formed a parallel to today’s current network dynamic. The under-princes emphatically sponsored the rigorous enforcement of sharia laws, because they comprised the formally legitimized ruling authority from the caliph (cf. Raddatz, From God to Allah?, 116 ff., Munich, 2001). Since sharia is inseparable from the core of Islamic existence, the cultural dialogue conducted in zealous dhimmitude must wear at least two muzzles — silence about the codex of violence in sharia, especially on prayer and on women as a means of jihad, and silence about the creeping empowerment of the proliferating UN-OIC networks as under-princes of the Coming Caliphate, which is being furthered by the leaders of Europe — and since Obama — of the USA. The trending totalitarianism is validated that much more in the US-supported empirical ideology, which has explicit reference to the system dynamic of human plurality — the mass intellect, on the basis of the potentialities of a bio-political power machine. With control of money, media and bombs, it is expected to bring about a “break with the order of being” and open the path to radical democracy in which people accommodate themselves to the shrinking spiral of the enmeshing spirit. There takes place an “anthropological exodus” in which the basic, old-culture restrictions fall away, and there are “no longer boundaries between human being and animal, human being and machine, male and female, etc.” (M. Hardt/A. Negri, Empire, 215, Cambridge, US, 2000).

Such cleavages in humanity might be discounted as utopian, were there not already the actual bio-political spirit-of-the-network in Islamic immigration, supported by the transcendent power machine of sharia, and if no government financed Gender Mainstream arose which assumes the dimensions of an anthropological exodus. With detailed planning and corrupt Euro elites,. the Coming Caliphate also provides an example of change in accordance with the “empirical” ideology. The old-religion idea of the salvation of the human being gives way to the Islamic-gnostic anti-principle of mass salvation through destruction and re-creation of the world, wherein crouches the here-and-now salvation of the elites. Corresponding with this is their freedom from any risk, since they blame every misstep on the masses whose compulsive humility reliably awards the rulers a truth bonus. The exception in Christian thought is based on blocking this shifting of responsibility, with the power-resistant warning: Without clarifying the question of guilt, do not throw the “first stone” at the person who put the question.

The transcendence of the machine has its modern counterpart in the unending flood of word, sound and picture with its open absence of observability which forms the cognitive version of the Blind Spot. This suggests that modernity, by obsessively fending off the old religion, is now becoming a prosthetic religion, which embraces the mass intellect, with the computer as a “magic observer,” through digitally refined control techniques and archived records. Like the precursors of the ecclesiastical register of sins, it reaches back to the tradition of esoteric power organizations which tie orient and occident together and are based on variants of identity checks and data storage. Their principle is burgeoning growth, infinite branching and detailing of controls which permeates consciousness and society and has its precursors in the “thousand eyes” networks of the great empires of Egypt and Persia. The concept of the EU/OIC alliance seems a copy of the Jesuits and the Illuminati who thereby achieved their prime and were specifically emulated by Lenin, Hitler and their mufti-ish epigones (Agethen, Secret Society and Utopia, 195 f., Munich, 1984).

Arrayed by Bat Ye’or, the esoteric exercise of power returns with striking accuracy in the documents, concepts and quotations of the cadres of Islamic dominance whose unswerving talk of a “total penetration” could have been inspired by the Quibus-Licet protocols of an Adam Weishaupt (d. 1830).[2]

A central role is played by the operational pair, Network-Control, which as a methodology of dialogue in Islam — especially OIC ad ISESCO — has clearly borrowed from Western pioneers like Michel Foucault and shows striking parallels with US empiricism. Foucault describes modernity as a higher form of disciplinary power, which overflows from the guidance and punishment of the body to the occupation of the consciousness in order to register it, catalogue it with all its characteristics, penetrate it down to the last niche of economic usefulness and audio-visual supervision. This dynamic produces “teachable bodies” — serial people purged of false consciousness, who will maintain the self-referentiality of the social and cultural processes in the power machine (Monitoring and Punishment, Frankfurt, 1977).

The OIC resolutions, as Bat Ye’or repeatedly emphasizes, talk about nothing else, speaking incessantly about the value of constantly refined networks and controls, in which the core of the strategy is the penetration of Western societies by the values of Islam. The best evidence is the OIC Observer’s Report on Islamophobia, which surveys the Islamic structural change in Europe and gives running guidance signals. This centralized function connects to Luhmann’s Islamic Devil as well as to the dark control tower in Jeremy Bentham’s (d.1832) Panopticon, which for Foucault serves as the model for the feelings machine of the global society. As the panoptic guardian monitors without being seen, the Euro mass always follows the anonymous elites into dhimmitude.

This procedure has nothing to do with religion, let alone morality, but rather much more with totalitarian system technology, and it forces the steady depletion of thinking — the opposite of René Descartes’ “cogito,” the fundamental impulse of modernity. At the same time, the philosopher of doubt exerts a systemic braking effect on the power dynamic, He challenges the person to observe the world in the spirit of discrimination and to recognize the deceptive effect of power, which he calls the “god of deception” — counterpart to Luhmann’s “devilish observer.” While Cartesian thinking puts perception at the center of human existence, it became the Enlightenment philosophers’ third bogeyman after church and aristocracy and even today moves proponents of totalitarian systems to the utmost aggression. One of its most important exponents is Martin Heidegger (d. 1973) who is considered the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century, although (or because) considerable portions of his philosophy preclude thinking. His doctrine opposes the right to life of unpopular groups and he does not restrict himself to the Jews, but virtually opens a vent for any will to kill which can “reveal the essential,” that is, can dispose of the old culture and make the Holocaust into a “fabrication of corpses” (Faye, Heidegger, 111).

The worldwide resonance of the Heidegger doctrine as the basis for radical domination testifies to the elitist mentality of amnesty for the globalization of mass murder with its partner, Islam, and Islam’s equally global format. Reinforcing the concept are prominent philosophers, human and cultural scientists in Europe and America — leaders in research into public dialogue who do not question the violent content of the Heidegger message, so that they can continue to be present in the mainstream and its content lists. This corresponds to the fact that the philosopher sees a “prowler spirit” in the Cogito creator, which is poisoning the universities and creating “difficult to exterminate” fallacies (ibid., 131). Cartesian thinking itself is elitist because, with consciousness intact, it does not lend itself to mass existence, but to distanced analyses of any dictated existence — an anti-power opposition whose intellectual superiority is hated and feared. Heidegger appears as the anti-Semitic prophet of the world machine, who justifies totalitarianism in general and — as virtual chief ideologue of the EU-OIC complicity — especially the jihad against Christians and Israel. There is much that says he would also stick his “prowler spirit” bumper sticker on Bat Ye’or’s unwanted chronicle.

Dr. Hans Peter Raddatz — orientalist and financial analyst — is the author of numerous books on modern society, the functions of globalization and the dialogue with Islam.


1. Ironic reference to the uproar caused by a CDU minister saying that “Islam is a part of Germany.”
2. Adam Weishaupt = founder of the secret society, the Illuminati;
Quibus Licet Protocols = secret documents of the Illuminati

Previous posts by Hans-Peter Raddatz:

2011 Mar 6 Is Secularization Possible in Islamic Countries?
2012 Dec 30 Europe and the Coming Caliphate: The Political-Cultural Scenario
    31 Europe and the Coming Caliphate: European Mufti-ism
2013 Jan 1 Europe and the Coming Caliphate: Dhimmitude versus Islamophobia


RonaldB said...

I began reading the tract of Dr. Raddatz, but didn't consider it worth finishing. The writing, frankly, reminds me of the leftist tracts, where long phrases meaningful to the left congniscenti are strung together to evoke agreement.

There is not a falsifiable statement in the tract. It's simply a stream of consciousness, where is you have the background to understand what he is referring to, you can nod or shake your head, but nowhere is there an argument or chain of reasoning that you can agree or disagree with.

It simply presents a fuzzy framework for orienting your thinking. Let me give a representative quote:

"The worldwide resonance of the Heidegger doctrine as the basis for radical domination testifies to the elitist mentality of amnesty for the globalization of mass murder with its partner, Islam, and Islam’s equally global format."

Do you feel any wiser for having read this?

"The transcendence of the machine has its modern counterpart in the unending flood of word, sound and picture with its open absence of observability which forms the cognitive version of the Blind Spot. This suggests that modernity, by obsessively fending off the old religion, is now becoming a prosthetic religion"

Can you agree or disagree with the last sentence? Is there anything there that is susceptible to the reasoning process?

I don't like to come down on contributors, but I think it important to maintain an intelligent dialog on this website, and respectful criticism is part of that dialog.

Baron Bodissey said...

To the anonymous commenter who just left a comment about Husserl and Heidegger:

For some reason your comment ended up in the "spam" section. It was obviously not spam. I read part of it, and it looked fascinating.

However, because it was in with the spam (and not "awaiting moderation"), the positioning of the clickable action tags was different, and I clicked "delete" by mistake.

That was entirely my fault. If you can see your way to reposting it, I'm certain that many readers, especially those with a penchant for philosophy, will want to read what you had to say.

Max Modine said...

I also found it heavy going and having only shallow memory of much of what he references (all cast to the recesses of my human Seagate), I found my vague sense of unease for the future becoming exponentially less opaque. I think he is saying:
 New World Order (Illuminati)
 Humanity edges ever closer to Totalitarianism
 Control the USA and you control everything
 The Financial, Physical and Technological Control Infrastructure to support accomplishment of the above, is largely in place
o Apathy, Greed and Consumerism rampant in Western Society
o Socialist Convenient Idiots running Western Education
 The tools to implement Totalitarianism and Illuminati evolving
o Purchased compliant Political Elite (via Middle-East and hence Muslim) oil money surplus)
o Muslim at the Helm in the US
o Isolation of Israel
Remember that English is probably his second language and that he probably has been speaking in academic complex for a long time. Max.

Anonymous said...

This is more or less what I wrote.

Most of what passes for advanced thinking in the humanities at the English and American universities is based on the work of the followers of the Nazi Heidegger. The same people who would dismiss a classical liberal such as Geert Wilders as "a Nazi", will make sure that no-one mentions that their darling leftwing philosophers were followers of a Nazi: Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc.

The same people who would support student unions having a "No Platform" policy that stops UKIP from speaking at British universities, will happily extol the works of the Nazi Heidegger.

Take away the obscurantist, self-refuting relativism of these thinkers, and cultural studies, literary studies, women's studies, queer theory, post-colonial studies would have no "theoretical" basis whatsoever. These subjects persist by making sure everything that is written is impenetrable and meaningless (I know, I used to teach those subjects before giving up on academia).

There is a post about the Nazi Heidgger on the Telegraph.

What is more interesting for me, is that most of what is happening in the west with regards to islamisation is predicated on relatvism (i.e. multi-culturalism presupposes relativism).

Heidegger's teacher was Husserl, a christianized jew (he had sons die in the trenches of WW1 fighting for Germany). Husserl was one of the top 5 philosophers of the 20th century (I would say he was joint top with Wittgenstein). Husserl's first work in the new field which he ploughed for 40 years, was his work from 1900, Logical Investigations. The first 200 pages is a refutation of relativism.

Husserl is virtually unknown outside of Germany, apart from a few university departments. From 1900 until WW2, Husserl had 100s of dedicated followers who were making new and original contributions to philosophy, in many fields, using the methods that Husserl had worked out. Many of them were jews and this came to an end with WW2.

After WW2 the leftwing philosophers all took up Heidgger, the follower of National Socialism, whose leader had allied with the Italian socialist Mussolini and the Russian socialist Stalin.

The leftwing academics have continued to promote Heidegger and his followers. And they have used obscurantism/meaningless language as a tool with which to browbeat other academics to recognise the value of their new fields.

Nazism did not die. The media and academics were so determined to salvage the socialism of Nazism that they designated Nazism as "right wing". The fools on the centre and on the right permitted this.

Those who propound socialism, or islam, are not interested in what they state their interests are. They are interested in power. And they are simply targetting the "interests" of a collective (or some group of collectives) as a means to gaining power. That socialists are prepared to ignore the slave trade when it is not white people trading black people shows that their true target was white people. The left will throw women's rights, gay rights, etc. under the bus, if it means that they can latch onto the interests of a collective who will provide them with a greater access to power.

Dymphna said...

At anon 7:17 --

Heidigger aside, surely Husserl was a more key figure than you give this group credit for? Phenomenology was to make a real impact in America, even on undergraduates.

And how about his influence (and that of his mentors - e.g., Wundt)on the budding 'science' of psychology?

I vaguely remember a book (I thought it was by Hughes, but can't find it now) that dealt with the profound effect on American philosophical thought (esp. the philosophical underpinnings of psychology and science) by Jewish intellectual refugees from Europe beginning in the mid '30s or so...Einstein and Horney come to mind, but of course there were *many* others. IIRC, the book used the phrase 'the great sea change'...

Here in the US on a practical level is the more-or-less continuation of this in Eugene Gendlin's (University of Chicago, must be emeritus by now) thought and work at the Focusing Institute. His book, "The Philosophy of the Implicit" leans heavily on Husserl. Even in his old age he's writing on Aristotle.

I used his mass market book on "Focusing" steps in my work with battered women at a domestic violence shelter. In other words, *that* work was extremely accessible and became widely disseminated considering its implicit subject matter.

There is a strong anti-intellectual strain in American culture, which is unfortunate. It has permitted the leftist mandarins to take over and control the heights of academe. However, when the 'university' house of cards with its useless gender studies trash comes crashing down, all that detritus will disappear into the oubliette along with basket weaving.

I wish I could be hopeful that something better would take its place. Probably, though, the average person (white male, non-elite) will gravitate towards practical learning and those bloated 'universities' will once again become diploma mills for the wealthy well-connected. The question is, will the female predominance that has begun in those ivied halls continue? And what does that portend? Certainly not more engineering students.

At any rate, the influence of Jewish intellectual refugees on American philosophical thought is historical knowledge that is being left behind as we hurtle into the 21st century.