Monday, November 26, 2012

Giving Voice to the Voiceless

“Whoever brings about a multiethnic state brings the society into a condition, at the very least, of a potential civil war.”

Our Canadian correspondent Rembrandt Clancy sends his translation of a speech by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage contained in a two-part, subtitled video, and accompanies it with his commentary. He notes:

Manfred Kleine-Hartlage posted the original (single video version) on his blog on 21 November 2012.

The occasion for the speech was Volkstrauertag (“People’s Mourning Day” or Day of Remembrance) in Berlin, before the Reichstag, on 18 November 2012. The speech seems to me to have some interest, and I have tried to retain the rhetorical devices in the translation.

First, the two parts of the subtitled video:

Part 1

Part 2

Rembrandt Clancy has provided context for Manfred Kleine-Hartlage’s speech, followed by the full text of the subtitles.

Manfred Kleine-Hartlage: Speech on Remembrance Day 2012
by Rembrandt Clancy

The German National Day of Mourning (Volkstrauertag or Remembrance Day) fell on 18 November of 2012. While always in mid-November, it is a moveable holiday in Germany. Among the main speakers at the three-hour event outside the Reichstag in Berlin was the political scientist, author and publicist Manfred Kleine-Hartlage (see his blog Korrectheiten). The civil rights party DIE FREIHEIT organised this first memorial of its kind (and not to be the last) to give a voice to the 7,500 Germans who since 1990 “…have become victims of immigrant violence … victims of a policy which is aimed at destroying the society”, says Kleine-Hartlage in his speech. He describes the policy of creating a multiethnic state as a “declaration of war [on the peoples of Europe] by their own elites”, hence a memorial for the fallen.

Mr. Kleine-Hartlage, who lives in Berlin, is currently well known among German counterjihadists for his book Das Dschihadsystem : Wie der Islam funktioniert (“The Jihad System: How Islam Works”: Resch Verlag, 2010). In 2011 he gave an interview on this very question at Gates of Vienna. Another contribution on “Global Governance” also appeared at Gates of Vienna. This latter essay, with its reference to “a global uniform civilization” and the concomitant “destruction of traditional patterns of values and loyalties”, is a good companion piece to the memorial speech below.

Another publication by Kleine Hartlage is Neue Weltordnung" — Zukunftsplan oder Verschwörungstheorie? (“New World Order — Future Plan or Conspiracy Theory”, 2011). He collaborated with Fjordman in the volume Europa verteidigen. Zehn Texte (“Defend Europe: Ten Texts”, 2011), and his latest book is Warum ich kein Linker mehr bin (“Why am no longer a Leftist”, 2012). Kleine-Hartlage reports on his above mentioned blog that he had been a member of the SPD (Social Democratic Party) in the 80s and 90s and had even supported red-green, although only out of habit, until he recognised leftist ideology was bent on the destruction of society, which in turn led him to a critical examination of Islamisation.

I would draw attention to just a few relationships which might be missed in the details after only one viewing. Written on the architrave of the Reichstag before which the speeches are given is the dedication DEM DEUTSCHEN VOLKE (“for the German People”) and the camera pans on the inscription at a few decisive moments. This inscription, with its word Volk, is a focal point of the talk:

“…the enemy, which wages war against the people [Volk] sits here, in this building [the Reichstag], which is dedicated to just this very people [Volke]”.

Kleine-Hartlage sharply contrasts two otherwise ordinary words: das Volk, the people; and die Bevölkerung, the population. Because a (multicultural) “population” is an inchoate mass of incompatible groups in “enmity”, it is incapable of challenging the political class. In the undeclared war, the Bevölkerung is replacing the Volk, whose homogeneity and common feeling-bond of solidarity remains a threat to the “so-called elites”.

Kleine-Hartlage expresses a second pair of opposites which underlies his comparison of Islam with Western culture: collectivism vs. individualism. Collectivism (Islam and Left ideology) corresponds to Bevölkerung. Individualism, as Kleine-Hartlage uses the term, is “anchored” in Christianity or Western culture, and is expressed through “higher ethical values” and “peaceableness”. A society of individuals in solidarity is a Volk. Hence Kleine-Hartlage’s interpretation of counterjihad emphasises a continuity with the West’s Christian roots; a “hermeneutic of continuity”, to borrow a term from Benedict XVI. The reader can find background for Kleine-Hartlage’s insistence on the “conservation” and “protection” of western cultural continuity on his blog placed under the title of his “Political Orientation”:

To the conservation of the open society belongs the repudiation of the ubiquitous totalitarian claim to validity of political ideology; that is, the protection of autonomy for religion, law, science and economics as non-political life-spheres. Above all, however, to this repudiation belongs the protection of cultural bedrocks, which only an open society makes viable: namely, the protection of an authentic Christianity, which does not curry favour with the Zeitgeist; preservation of a national state as the basis of democratic order; and above all, preservation of the family as the basis of society. (And since this self-evident understanding has to be added in today’s world: family means the marriage of man and woman, from which offspring emerge.)

This implies the battle against utopian ideologies which aim at the destruction of these foundations of our culture, by which I mean the fight against utopian ideologies such as globalisation, syncretism, gender mainstreaming, etc. It implies that I also come to grips, in an ideology-critical way, with the kind of political postures, which from the democratic standpoint are above suspicion, but which have a totalitarian reverse side. For example, I fight against an ever so well-intended political correctness, through the implementation of which freedom of speech becomes ever more insistently a mockery, and degenerates to mere constitutional lyricism; against an Islam which one simply cannot neatly separate (and must not) from its political variant, Islamism, as the above mentioned political correctness requires; against ideological speech; against hostility toward science; against hostility toward Christianity and against militant atheism.

[Mr. Kleine-Hartlage continues with a statement in support of Israel]

This description mentions a final pair of opposites: globalisation versus the national state, or in the speech it is expressed as “transference of … rights to supranatural institutions” versus the “demos” or a “people”. The globalisation — national state opposition is the superordinate one because, in the words of the Baron, it “… provide[s] answers to . . . questions, which are otherwise unanswerable.” It makes the other two oppositions interpretable, not to mention mass immigration, Islamisation, elimination of borders, gender mainstreaming etc.

The following video material was originally posted by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage on 21 November at Korrectheiten.

Below is the full text of the subtitles used in the videos:

Part 1

Ladies and Gentlemen: I greet you most heartily to today’s mourning event.

Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
Unity and justice and freedom

Für das deutsche Vaterland!
For the German fatherland!

Danach lasst uns alle streben
For these let us all strive

Brüderlich mit Herz und Hand!
Brotherly with heart and hand!

Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
Unity and justice and freedom

Sind des Glückes Unterpfand;
Are the pledge of fortune;

Blüh’ im Glanze dieses Glückes,
Flourish in this fortune's blessing,

Blühe, deutsches Vaterland!
Flourish, German fatherland!

Many thanks.

Manfred Kleine-Hartlage is the first to speak.

Manfred Kleine-Hartlage is a writer and among other things has written the book Das Dschihadsystem [“The Jihad System”]. Mr. Kleine-Hartlage I look forward to your words.

Dear Friends:

In normal times and under normal circumstances a day such as today, Remembrance Day (Volkstrauertag), would be a day of quiet remembrance and of mutual mourning for the people and their representatives.

In normal times it would be a day of prayer: for the dead of past wars and prayer that we might be spared future wars.

In normal times there would be unity concerning the meaning of remembrance days; there would be no necessity to hold political speeches on such a day, and thereby to speak about antagonisms.

In normal times it would not be necessary for us to gather before the Reichstag building in order to form a counterpoint to that which is happening in this building.

But the times are not normal. This Remembrance Day does not fall in a time of peace. It falls in a time of undeclared war which is being waged against the people of Europe.

It falls in times in which it is important even to make mere self-evident matters explicit; as for example, the self-evident truth that one feels bound to one’s own people in a special way, and that this has nothing to do with resentment against other peoples.

We live at a time in which even such self-evident understandings are not understood, for when one makes them explicit, a complete cartel of propaganda institutions work to defame the one who expresses them.

We live in times in which the people must fight for a chance to have any voice at all, because their so- called representatives put things in their mouths which they would never say on their own accord.

We are here today in order to give these people a voice, and hence today’s memorial cannot be a silent memorial, although we all would gladly have it so. Circumstances which we have not chosen, but which have been forced upon us, do not permit it.

That my name stands on the speaker’s list for our current Remembrance Day event is a chance event.

It could just as well have been on the list of victims of immigrant violence whose names are about to be read out today.

Two and a half years ago I was smashed up and kicked severely by a Nigerian. And he kicked and kicked and did not stop. The occasion for this explosion of hatred and violence was that I had asked him to turn down his music which blasted from his shop through the whole of Altstadt Spandau. What saved my life was the circumstance that a very athletically built former police officer came along by chance. He had the capability and the courage to intervene which, as we all know, is an extremely rare stoke of luck. And it is thanks to this stroke of luck that I stand here today.

The case is typical in three respects: the triviality of the occasion — the extreme brutality of the reaction — and the hatred for the indigenous population which explodes at the slightest occasion.

Certainly it is an isolated event in the sense that every single event, tautologically speaking, is an isolated event. But as a social scientist I cannot be content with mere tautologies. When thousands upon thousands of such so called “isolated events” follow a recognisable pattern: when again and again the same constellation arises, when again and again the same mentality is discernable, when again and again the perpetrator originates from the same groups, then I can not pretend the victims of such violence are only the victims of general criminality, like background noise, so to speak, such as there is, and always will be, in every society. For this violent criminality has to have identifiable social causes.

Up to this point even left and liberal do-gooders would presumably respond favourably. Their talk of the “social causes” of immigrant violence (in so far as this can be named as such at all) belongs to nothing less than their standard repertoire and to their standard set phrases. However we must emphasise one thing, and hold them to their word: those who attribute the violent criminality of immigrants to social causes admit accordingly that it is not just a matter of the oft-cited “isolated cases” which have nothing to do with each other, and which point to no recognisable pattern.

The ideology industry of our country will therefore have to decide between one of their two excuses, for they logically exclude one another. For it is also an excuse to speak of “social causes” to the extent that they are invoked by leftist ideologues.

When these ideologues — whether we are dealing with politicians, with journalists, with church representatives, with teachers or professors — when any of these speak of “social causes”, then they do it as a rule without having researched the real social causes. The catalogue of their so called social causes is extremely straightforward.

Immigrant violence exists — according to the prevailing discourse — because migrants are poor; the state does not do enough for their integration; because the fight against the Right is not conducted energetically enough; and — this above all — because the Germans are racists who discriminate against immigrants out of sheer malice.

I would just once like to see one of these ideologues name a single country in the world that is less racist than Germany! Just a single one! There is no other country in the world where one is as careful not to judge single individuals based on general opinions about an ethnic or religious group. Where else is it so important to a person as here not to be precluded by prejudice from seeing in every single one of his fellow men an individual, and not just a mere exemplar of a group to whom one ascribes some characteristics.

And yet this aversion to prejudices can even be quite dangerous. Take this Nigerian: were I to have harboured the prejudice that he would be violent no matter what, then I would not have gone to him at all, but would have called the police immediately. That I did not have this prejudice, THAT is what nearly cost me my life.

Just so that we get this straight: This is no plea that we be guided by prejudice in the future. Rather it is a plea to reject the blanket suspicion that the German people are a nation of racists, and to reject it for the absolutely racist defamation that it actually is, and which is pulled out of thin air.

The political Left never researches the real social causes of migrant violence; they take this violence mostly as an occasion to demand what they would demand and pursue anyway; namely, the expansion of the welfare state at the expense of the taxpayers, more permanent posts and more tax revenue for deserving comrades and their projects, the gagging of their political opponents, more propaganda, more censorship, and the intensified intimidation and defamation of their own people.

Part 2

Leftist ideologues always understand by the “social causes” of migrant violence only one thing: namely, that their ideology and their interests have not been sufficiently served.

It is not self-evident, and it does happen by itself, that men succeed in living together peacefully and in a well ordered manner; it is even an astonishing wonder they succeed time and again. Every culture is a fine tissue of thousands upon thousands of largely unwritten rules, moral concepts, common memories and shared convictions. Every culture is a unique, specific answer to the question of how man manages not to be wolf to man. And when I say “unique”, it means perforce that the answers for every culture turn out differently.

There are cultures in which the family clan and its unconditional cohesion are the foundation of the society’s protection of individuals; on the other hand, there are individualistically informed cultures such as ours, where people entrust this protection to the state and its laws; and it can entrust it to them, normally, because we depend on others to do the same thing.

There are cultures in which the capability and readiness to use violence has prestige value, and there are societies such as ours in which violence is proscribed.

There are cultures in which yielding qualifies as a sign of weakness, and there are societies like ours in which conflicts are considered as simple differences of opinion which at best are dealt with discursively, and at worst are brought before a court.

In this respect these other cultures do not necessarily function worse than ours, but just differently. Islam for example, as a cultural system, accomplishes that which a cultural system must: it orders the society. But it orders it differently than our Christian or Western system. The problems only begin where two, three, four or more different and incompatible cultures are forcibly confined together in the same country; that is, where there is the herding together of what does not belong together.

Whoever brings about a multiethnic state brings the society into a condition, at the very least, of a potential civil war. Whoever pursues this plunges the society into a permanent structural crisis which persistently intensifies with advancing mass immigration; he stirs up conflicts, he encourages vigilante justice, he destroys the societal consensus of values and he destroys the preconditions for social peace. Who teaches his children peaceableness does so on the basis of higher ethical values which in the end are anchored in Christianity. But whoever forces men raised for peacefulness to live together with others who come from violent cultures — like this Nigerian — such a person purposefully and systematically makes victims out of them, and he invites an infinite guilt upon himself.

The 7,500 Germans who since 1990 have become victims of immigrant violence are victims of a policy which is aimed at destroying the society — out of ideological blindness; out of greed for a cheap, easily exploitable workforce — whose situation is at the same time so precarious that the welfare state will ultimately collapse from excessive demand. This too is a desired outcome for certain people, a desired outcome of mass immigration: out of hatred for their own people; hatred of these damnable Germans, whom they wish to disown — not least — out of lust for power.

There is a reason why, in all Western countries, there is a functional elite which pursues the destruction of peoples and their transformation into mere fragmented “populations”: “Peoples”, namely, are solidarity communities, which can sometimes send their rulers packing. The battle cry with which the rulers in the East German Socialist Unity Party were toppled 23 years ago was not: “We are the population.” It was: “We are the people.”

A mere population consisting of dozens of ethnic groups in enmity with each other will never overthrow their rulers. They simply cannot do it. A democracy requires a demos, it requires a people. A despotism, on the other hand, a dictatorship, a totalitarian system — yes, that requires a population.

The destruction of peoples is one side of the coin the other side of which is the transference of their rights to supranatural institutions: to the European Union, the WTO, IMF, NATO, UN and dozens of others — all institutions which are not to be controlled from below, but which determine our lives: they prescribe for us the rules by which we have to live; they prescribe for us what foodstuffs we are to eat, with what people we have to coexist in our own country, against whom we are to wage war and into which inscrutable bank conglomerate our tax money disappears.

What is in the making here is a global despotism of elites which systematically eludes every responsibility and every safeguard. And part of this process is the systematically precipitated mass immigration, this largest-ever mass migration in 1,500 years (at that time this mass immigration led to the collapse of Roman civilisation).

Against today’s event it is argued that Remembrance Day is devoted to the mourning of German war victims, — and crime victims are not war victims. But I say — they are exactly that! They are victims of a war which is being waged against all the peoples of Europe, not just against the German people. But when I say that a war is being waged, I have also to answer the question as to who the enemy is.

Are the enemy young migrants who are waging their private jihad against a people whom they hold in contempt because those people bring up their children to be peaceable? I would say these are at most auxiliary troops, apropos the Antifa; the Autonomists; the Antideutschen; the fighters against the Right, pampered with tax money; and all the small leftist IM-types [Unofficial Collaborator-types for the Stasi = Inoffizieller Mitarbeiter] who only too gladly give full scope to the swine in men and allow free reign to their joy in self-righteousness, denunciation, mobbing and man-hunting. Such as these are the auxiliary troops.

Is the enemy perhaps in the Muslim Brotherhood, or in the Turkish government, or with the Milli Görüs [National Vision — Turkish nationalists]? I would say they are at most — but at least! — the staff of the auxiliary troops.

No, the enemy, which wages war against the people [Volk] sits here, in this building [the Reichstag], which is dedicated to just this very people [Volke]. And not only there: the enemy sits not only on government benches and in parliamentary seats, it sits also in the main editorial offices, professorships, in the head offices of banks and major corporations, in the EU bureaucracy, in the boards of multi-billion dollar propaganda foundations and the luxury villas of their financiers. The enemy is found in Berlin, Brussels, in New York, in Washington — it sits where the societal powers agglomerate, the visible power as well as the invisible.

The war, for whose victims we mourn today, is a rulers’ war, a war of tiny elites against the rest, it is a war of those in power against the people.

This Bundestag, this political class, which looks after the political affairs of the rich and powerful — this political class does not have the right at all to mourn for German dead, for they are not their dead! They do not have the right to organise a people’s day of mourning, for they have dissociated themselves from their people, they have deceived, betrayed, sold them and are working on their destruction. They have not even the right, as they now do, to mourn the foreign victims of extreme right-wing violence, for they also have these dead on their conscience. And the tears which they now shed are crocodile tears.

We mourn today for the victims of an extremely one-sided war. It is time for the peoples of Europe to embrace the unstated, but very effectively campaigned declaration of war made by their own so-called elites, and answer it adequately.

I thank you.


Anonymous said...

“Whoever brings about a multiethnic state brings the society into a condition, at the very least, of a potential civil war.”

This is a problematic translation of part II, 3rd minute, as ethnicity to too many people means 'race'. 'Vielvoelkerstaat' is not best translated as 'multiethnic'. This translation could be pounced on to claim that Kleine-Hartlage is a racist. Up until then, he had been speaking about different cultures, and in that context 'Vielvoelkerstaat' is best translated as multicultural.

Hearing his speech gave me no suspicion that he is a racist, concerned with what race someone has, unless by ethnicity you mean culture, not biological similarities.

His concerns, and mine, are about a dangerous, violent, misogynistic and homophobic ideology, not race.

But if he does mean 'many races' by Vielvoelkerstaat, I wash my hands of him! Many races can live well together if shared values unite them.

Anonymous said...

Of these 'many races (that) can live well together if shared values unite them' (Anonymous 12.15 AM) who's values will they choose and how will they choose them? Individuals from one race can live peaceably amongst members of another race but only as individuals and not as part of a racial/cultural/ethnic group. Culture comes initially from within.

Mr Manfred Kleine-Hartlage makes a good point viz 'democracies have a people, dictatorships have a population'. And I wonder if the BBC's growing tendency to refer to groups in terms of quantity rather than number is indicative of this move to dictatorship - BBC reporters/newsreaders frequently refer to an "amount of people" rather than a "number of people." Is the same misuse of whatever the word equivalents are occurring in other European countries? It's hard to imagine not.

Anonymous said...

Well , "Vielvölkerstaat" used to describe the austrian Empire which had Tcheques,Slowakians,Bosnians,Polish,
German,Hungarians,Italian,Serbs ,Kroatians and what have you.Maybe the ethymological explanation of the word "nation" can help: it is what you are "born" and raised in and where you feel part of, language, history , religion, ancestry and so on.

Anonymous said...

The strains within the Austro-Hungarian empire became so great that it lead to the First World War and then the Empire's collapse into separate ethnocentric states.

The Empire was a bulwark against the Islamic Ottoman Empire. However, it was virtually totally white and Christian. It was not a multiethnic or multicultural state in the sense of wholly different, races and religions living cheek by jowl. I cannot think of a case of this working out except through totalitarianism which is what we now have in multicultural Europe today.

Anonymous said...

Below is an English translation entry from German Wiki of the term Vielvölkerstaat:

Vielvölkerstaat” is a designation for (mostly historical) states which extend over the settlement area or the cultural- language area of several peoples [Völkern] or ethnicities (nationalities) [Ethnien]). The “Vielvölkerstaat” is not ethnically homogeneous and is therefore seen in contrast to the “Einvolkerstaat” (sic) [hence: Vielvölkerstaat versus Einvölkerstaat.- multi vs single].

The inhabitants of a “Vielvvölkerstaat” constitute a community under the rule of law, even when they consist of differentiated ethnic groups [Volksgruppen],.

The concept of a “Vielvölkerstaat” is used, as a rule, in the sense of an illustrating example, not as an analytical category. So there are neither uniform criteria, under the presuppositions of which one can speak of a “Vielvölkerstaat”, nor are there theoretical conclusions associated with it. As an epithet, the term is regularly used in the context of Austria-Hungry, the Soviet Union, the Ottoman Empire and Jugoslavia as well as, in recent times, in the context of Russia and South Africa. Switzerland regards itself occasionally as a model for a Mehrvölkerstaat; that is, for a federalism across ethnic, linguistic and religious affiliations, with the task of balancing the voices of Cantons and citizens [Duden Deutsches Universal-Wörterbuch (1983) defines both Mehrvölkerstaat, and Vielvölkerstaat as Nationalitätenstaat or multinational state].

Note: That “the inhabitants of a Vielvvölkerstaat constitute a community under the rule of law”, in the sense of one law for all, would not appear to apply to Islamic communities in a multiculti environment to the extent that they gravitate toward parallel societies under the Sharia.