Euro Rescue Operation or Mass Usurpation of Parliament?

The following posting on the site of the German publication Welt Online, written by Gunther Lachmann is relaying a video that has lately gone viral on the German language section of the Internet, much to the dismay of supporters of the parliamentary system.

- Will Europeans defend
their sovereignty? - 

What started out as a bailout program for Greece and Ireland, rendering these former proud sovereign nations de facto wards of state of the EU, has now grown into a hatchling Leviathan, EFSF. By 2013 it is to morph into a fully fledged monster (ESM) that will usurp the Parliamentary budget right of all euro zone countries.

We are sleep-walking into serfdom. The future will be taxation without representation! Where is the EuroTeaParty?

It's important to keep an eye on Germany. The Constitutional Court has pulled the brakes at the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, when politicians forgot for a moment that Europe isn't (yet) a state. In fact, there's a new ruling:

Update: ZeroHedge: "Explaining The German Constitutional Court Ruling".

Here's a translation of Lachmann's piece:

~ o ~

Video Reveals the Hidden Agenda Behind the Euro Rescue Operation

The new EU financial authority is seeking rights for itself that has left democrats dumbfounded. Politicians know it since May - and are keep stum about it.

For several days now a video about the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) has been making the rounds on the Internet. The video analyzes the draft agreement that the euro-zone countries have charted out in spring of this year. Two interesting things have emerged. First, the features have not yet been publicly debated in Germany, although the draft treaty has already been delivered to the parliamentary parties in May. Secondly, elected officials do not speak directly about the issues as mentioned in the video.



Here is some background information: As of 2013 the ESM will succeed the temporary euro rescue operation (EFSF). The German federal parliament will debate the EFSF later this month. The ESM is to be adopted in December.

In the video, the following points from the preliminary draft Treaty ESM are discussed:

• The ESM is to get a share capital of €700 billion. That's twice as much as the entire German federal budget this year.

• The ESM members agree "irrevocably and unconditionally" to payment "within 7 (seven) days".

• The Board of Governors may decide to change the share capital.

• The ESM, its property, and its financial assets enjoy full legal immunity.

• The property, funds and assets of the ESM are "exempt from access through search, seizure, forfeiture, expropriation and any other form of seizure, taking or foreclosure by government action or a judicial, administrative or legislative action"

"Welt Online" confronted all parliamentary parties with the findings, produced a "representatives-check.de" video and asked for a brief assessment of the points highlighted in the video. On the advisory board of "deputies check.de" are journalists, such as former "Welt" editor Adam Konrad and longtime "FAZ" correspondent, Karl Feldmeyer.

The SPD announced that it will refrain from "commenting on the video" because of the "dubious campaign" against the euro by "a single operator of various websites - including one on which present video is found". "For further information on its euro policy" the SPD referred us to their Home Page. And since the ESM contract was currently under renegotiation, the statements in the video are outdated and untrue anyway.

What does the Union think

The CDU/CSU parliamentary group is defending the ESM. The financial affairs spokesman Klaus-Peter Flosbach wrote down in their stance for "Welt Online": "The video is much too biased to be informative. This only deepens the voters' confusion. Important issues, central to the functioning of the European stability mechanism, are omitted.

It does not, for example, point to the particularly high hurdles under which financial assistance may be granted. Also missing is information about the participation of the private sector, or that Germany has veto power. This video is but one example of the great need for information. We need to better explain to the voters why we have taken this route in dealing with the European sovereign debt crisis".

What say the Greens

The Green Party said that they had been in conclave the past week and spoke "very intensely about the problems as mentioned in the video". This has led to the following conclusions:

"Despite the need for improvement, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) is a useful tool. Therefore, we support it. The ESM must be made operational quickly and credibly. Only that will calm down the financial markets and will a market-driven debt crisis be prevented from happening in the future. At the same time, the rights of the legislature as imposed by the Federal Constitutional Court ruling regarding Lisbon and the integrity of the German Parliament, must be maintained. Therefore a far-reaching involvement of the German Bundestag in important".

The existing laws on the participation and involvement of the German Parliament in matters concerning the EU will serve as a model for the future involvement of parliament in ESM. The Greens call for:

- "The nature, amount of German contributions, and the instruments must be determined by law and can only be changed by an amendment.

- Similarly, should other countries apply to be included in the permanent rescue plan, the agreement of the Bundestag is mandated. Should the federal government for any compelling reason disagree with the decision of the Bundestag, the Bundestag must be immediately informed before the crucial vote takes place.

- Furthermore, the government must inform Parliament of any action in the ESM and decision-making bodies at the earliest possible date, comprehensively, continuously and in writing and orally. The information includes relevant documents, including preparatory articles".

However, should the parliament not agree with the billions of aid, the Greens will immediately reserve their right of democratic participation:

"But the ESM must be able to act in a crisis and be able to respond quickly. Therefore, a mandatory decision of the Bundestag before the granting a loan would hamper coping with the crisis".

But they expect that "the European Parliament will be fully involved: the ESM is to insure financial stability in the euro zone as a whole".

What does Die Linke

Alexander Ulrich, chairman of the Group in the European Union Committee, spoke on behalf of Die Linke about the video: "Die Linke rejects the European stability mechanism - probably the only group in the Bundestag - off hand". Their reasons, however, are different from those in the video. The video completely ignores the participation rights secured by the German Goverment.

"Decisions are either taken unanimously or by a majority which includes a German vote," said Ulrich. Also, the participation rights of the Bundestag are misrepresented in the video, for example that the ESM can't raise capital independently. The Bundestag has set the ceiling for German participation in national law.

"But it is true: Parliament should have more rights in the future, and decide on euro rescue packages," said Ulrich. "What these participation rights should be is up to parliament to negotiate in the forthcoming ratification of the ESM Treaty".

Criticism of the ESM is justified, but the real weaknesses must be pointed out: "We can't waste billions of taxpayers' money in order to save banks and speculative profits. Recipients should not even be driven into recession by socially unjust and economically nonsensical reduction programs that raise their debts instead of lowering them, "Ulrich wrote.

De Linke therefore demand euro bonds and loans from a European Bank for public bonds, so that exorbitant rates of capital markets and speculators are reigned in.

Criticism of economic law expert, Kerber

Outside of politics the issue is viewed differently, says a Berlin economic law expert, Markus C. Kerber, who represents 50 entrepreneurs in a Court action against the policies of the federal government: "The ESM is the future of Finance. The ESM contract will lead to the elimination of the budget right of Parliament". He specifically warns against this road.

More contributions by Günther Lachmann

Courtesy @hlelowrold & @berryhoning

Related

- Orphans of Liberty: "The European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism", by James Higham

The German Left, Reduced to Reductio ad Hitlerum

While Thilo Sarrazin in his best-selling book "Deutschland schafft sich ab" (Germany is abolishing itself) has a point in his criticism of Islam and the lack of integration of Muslims into German society, doing so in terms of procreation is inviting the impression of a racist mindset, to say the least.

The Red-Green opposition is now catching on to this aspect of the book and has responded with a giant 'Godwin', accusing Germany's elites of Hitler tolerance and Nazi apology.

In "Das Amt und die Vergangenheit" (The Foreign Ministry and the past), written by 'an independent committee' the finger is pointed at the politically-minded Bildungsburgers (or members of the German educated classes).

Juxtaposing these two entirely unrelated issues is as irrational as well as artlessly construed. Nevertheless former Foreign Ministers Joschka Fischer and Frank-Walter Steinmeier both recently alluded to the alleged connection.

• Sign and sight: "Hitler's diplomats debunked", by Alan Posener

At the presentation of the report on the Foreign Ministry during the Third Reich by an independent historian commission, they talked to a packed auditorium in Berlin about its involvement in the Nazi killing machine. Independently of one another Steinmeier and Fischer gave speeches in which they compared "The Ministry" with Thilo Sarrazin's bestseller. Fischer reminded his audience that it was in the Foreign Ministry that he been confronted with a "parallel society". On a similar note, Steinmeier said that anyone who wanted to learn how Germany is abolishing itself should read "The Ministry".

So get this! The Red-Green coalition that entered office in 1998 pushed multiculturalism to the hilt. Integration was considered racism and cultural barbarism. But they rebuff all critique by pointing the finger at career diplomats and the old elites and institutions, who created a "grand delusion!"

- Caption: another curious juxtaposition: young Hitler and young Wittgenstein -

Posener:

"The Ministry and the Past" is therefore – as Fischer and Steinmeier both made very clear in their speeches - the first shot fired in an ideological counter-offensive which will restore Red-Green to power.

Has anyone told them yet, that Red-Green is in implosion mode all over the civilized world? It is really scraping the barrel when justified criticism of the now bankrupt multicultural welfare policies, can only be rebutted by a giant fallacy, the reductio ad Hitlerum (or a Godwin). Or alternatively, a tu quoque!

Of Anti-German Activities and Targeted Provocations (update)

Do you remember ... A Landmark: the Moment of Infamy? ...

... and The Moral Confusion in the West?

Well the verdict is in and we're even more confused than we originally thought. In fact, we're going to the dogs. Here's Fred Alan Medforth from Gelsenkirchen, Germany reporting on the case:

Allah's Willing Executioners: "German head of the Constitution criminalizes pro-Israel protesters" - Hat Tip: Atlas Shrugs

The head of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution of the German federal state North Rhine-Westphalia, Hartwig Möller (Picture), has criminalized pro-Israel and pro-USA protesters. In an interview with the newspaper Ruhr Nachrichten, he described the presentation of an Israeli flag in a violent Islamist rally in Duisburg as "targeted provocation". The flag was removed by the police (as reported). Mr Möller blames so-called anti-Germans for the hanging of the Israeli flag. In the interview Möller said:

Center of the political objectives of the anti-Germans is the unconditional support of Israel and thus Israel's protective power USA. (...) >>>

Let me get this straight: the head of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution has aligned himself with members of an organization - Milli Görüs - that is said to be so radical, that it is being monitored by the Office of the Protection of the Constitution ...

... he is doing so by condemning counter-protesters for anti-German activities, calling it "a targeted provocation"? If the blog's conclusion is correct that the political objective of the 'anti-Germans' is seen as the support of Israel and America's protective power we're back in 1945, the old anti West knee-jerk alive and kicking despite two world wars! Gird your loins!

Be sure not to miss out on the update. Switch off the lights on the way out please ...

Update:

Who believes the outrage in Germany is an unique occurrence, is sadly mistaken. Here's Melanie Phillips report from the UK on the state of higher education. It's a safe bet that similar forces are at work on a global scale ...

The Spectator: "The jihad against Britain's Jews"

(...) One of the most troubling developments is the way in which the universities have become an extension of the Middle East conflict, with a simulacrum of the aggression, intimidation and violence from which Israel is under attack by the Arabs being directed at Jewish students on British campuses, who now routinely run a gauntlet of intimidation and abuse from Arab and Muslim students. But even more worryingly, some universities are spinelessly choosing to give in to such bullying.

Throughout last week, after the cease-fire was declared in Gaza, there was a series of anti-Israel sit-ins and demonstrations organised by the STWC at some 17 universities: in London at the School of Oriental and African Studies, the London School of Economics, Queen Mary College and King’s College, as well as at Bradford, Sheffield Hallam, Warwick, Leeds, Oxford, Cambridge, Sussex, Essex, Nottingham, Birmingham, Manchester, Manchester Metropolitan and Strathclyde. Some of these protests led to criminal damage and forced the universities to pay thousands of pounds to deal with the disruption, rearrange lectures, hire extra security guards and repair the damage. (...) >>>

- Filed on Articles in "Antisemitism" -

The Moral Confusion in the West

Last Sunday in "A Landmark: the Moment of Infamy we reported on an outrage in Duisburg, Germany in which the police - in order to deescalate a explosive situation with a raving pro Hamas crowd - broke in and entered the private premises of a Israeli sympathizer in order to remove two 'offensive' Israeli flags (see the post for video footage of the event).

Occurrences that like cross the ethics Rubicon in that police officers, servants of the state (i.e. of all of us), are seen bowing to an angry, intolerant mob.

Israel Matzav today has further information on the case and states that the incident has rightly upset a lot of people in Germany; this may not be the end of it. We sincerely hope so.

The mob is now known to have consisted of members of the Turkish Nationalistic/Islamist organization Milli Görüs (caption: logo/flag), here described as a wolf in sheep's clothing for activities other than folk dancing. Whatever aim they pursue, it prevents Turks from assimilating in Western societies and as such, is a hazard. The incident is evidence of the organization's true character and the inroads it has managed to make on the psyche of the German authorities.

The tolerance the West is showing for the intolerant is temporarily culminating in unbridled antisemitism not seen here since World War II. The Duisburg flag owner was brave enough to take a stance against it, but failed to find the servants of the law on his side to defend his rights and property.

Police spokespersons meanwhile have gone from defending their actions, to apologies (probably not even realizing why they are at fault - or am I too pessimistic here?).

The Social Democratic Party (SPD), whom for years have pushed the "multicultural" agenda like there's no tomorrow, now want a debate in the state's parliament about the outrage. Why?

Have they renounced multiculturalism as a pernicious ideology and do they no longer believe in the premise that all cultures are equally valid? Do they think Israel, a. has the right to defend itself, and b. has no option but to destroy a terrorist hell hole which brutally murders its own citizens, children included? I don't think so.

The party describes the essence of the matter as follows (read that carefully): "Why was the potential for danger during the protest so underestimated that police were forced into a situation in which they had to concede to the demands of violent (protesters) rather than (protect) the right to the freedom of speech of others?"

Israel Matsav's blogger Carl rephrases that as follows: "Actually, the central question is why police conceded to the demands of violent protesters rather than protecting the freedom of speech of others (...) If Europe wants to save itself from the Islamic onslaught, it had better learn the difference between those two questions."

The problem as usual is the relativist default position which is killing Western culture and debilitates the ability to defend against hostile self-realizationists.

The irony is, that while relativists see any absolutism as the epitome of evil (full stop), the Postmodern dialectic translates that into "any absolutism emanating from evil Western culture, 'oppressed' minorities" exempted.

- Caption: cartoon Henry Payne -

As long as that is the default morality propagated by intellectuals, the media and officials, the West is careering headlong into the abyss of cultural suicide.

The default position should be: Western laws and values prevail in this country and hence on we have a zero-tolerance policy with regard to any form of intolerance. Objectivity is key, no more compensating minorities for perceived inequalities. Any form of apartheid is unacceptable.

If that doesn't change - rapidly - we're doomed, doomed ...

- Filed on Articles in "In Defense of Liberty"

A Landmark: the Moment of Infamy (Update)

I'm not one for cross-blogging and living off other bloggers' scoops, but this is an entirely different matter.

I request my colleague-bloggers to put this story on their front pages, to disseminate it wherever they can on Facebook, Twitter, or through whatever other means at their disposal to expose this affront. Spread it far and spread it wide!

Enough is enough. We have been finding ourselves on this slippery slope on the way to hell for some time now. The media no longer find it useful to be objective, or even to pretend they are. Last week we saw them flinging kerosene on the Gaza fire as if there's no responsibility for honest reporting.

CNN went so far as putting up and taking down an obvious fake in the time-honored tradition of Pallywood Productions, only to reinstate it moments later.

A line will have to be drawn at some point. The mob will take it all the way to Gaza and Bamyan, no mistake about it. The question is, where does the culture of freedom and civilization draw the line?

I understand the police wanted to deescalate the situation, but there's also some point that the mob needs to be told in no uncertain terms where it gets off (preferably with democracy, prosperity and responsible citizenship still somewhat in tact). I suggest this is IT.

Perhaps the best place to drop this is at the front porch of the German Embassy in your country of residence. It's a good job that Germany has a special responsibility in the case.

WHERE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD IS EVERYONE, WHERE ARE THE LEADERS, THE GOVERNMENTS, IS EVERYONE WEARING BLINKERS!!!!!

Relativist thinkers deny the existence of good and evil. As a result they never stop believing there is the possibility of a compromise. But you cannot negotiate with evil. About what? About how much evil is okay? How many Jews it would be okay to Endloess? This is also the barrier which President-Elect Obama will hit once he starts negotiating with Iran and Syria.

Update:

If calls of "Hamas, Hamas, put the Jews on Gas" as is the case in the Netherlands aren't bad enough, what makes present case stand out so badly is that it involves police officers, servants of the state whose task it is to uphold and protect the law and basic civil rights.

These officers however first morally nodded to the mob by granting their wishes to remove the offensive Israeli flags, they also crushed privacy and property laws by breaking and entering the premises. As such, this case crosses the Rubicon, but possibly it has occurred before in a number of places.

Jihad Watch: "German police aids Jew-hating Muslim mob, removes Israeli flag from window"



Jihad Watch reader Oao just sent me this:

:16 AM Received from Muqata Blog Reader in Germany, Sebastian M.

Today, 10.000 people demonstrated against Israel here in my hometown Duisburg (Germany) and to express their solidarity with Hamas. So, my girlfriend and me put two Israel flags out of the windows of our flat in the 3rd floor. During the demonstration which went through our street the police broke into our flat and removed the flag of Israel. The statement of the police was to de-escalate the situation, because many youth demonstrators were on the brink of breaking into our apartment house. Before this they threw snowballs, knifes and stones against our windows and the complete building. We both were standing on the other side of the street and were shocked by seeing a police officer standing in our bedroom and opening the window to get the flag. The picture illustrate this situation. The police acquiesced in the demands of the mob.

And as you can see from the video, the mob applauded, cheered, and shouted "Allahu akbar" when the flag disappeared.

Video above from Jewish Odysseus (thanks to Phil).

Our credits go to Brian of London.

You can Digg It here.

Revising "the Logic of Hegemony"

John Rosenthal has got a worthy piece of prose up on Pajamas Media that makes the skin crawl. "German Publishing’s Man in the White House" tells of Obama's ties to Germany's Bertelsmann Publishing and a massive conflict of interest yet to be fully disclosed.

There's the fact that the emporium happens to be the President Elect’s principal source of income, but even worse, perhaps hard to imagine in this day and age - or sadly, not any more - the Bertelsmann conglomerate does not belong to the vein of Teutons, who in a less politically correct time, were referred to as 'good Germans'.

Consider: the Bertelsmann Foundation and Corporation are two perfectly intertwined entities, both in effect, emanations of the Mohn family. Rosenthal:

"It might be considered irrelevant today that Bertelsmann massively collaborated with the Nazi regime during World War II. (For more on this, see “Bill Clinton’s German Paymasters.”) But it is surely not irrelevant that when German researcher Hersch Fischler first brought this fact to light, the family proposed to have the matter further investigated by one Dirk Bavendamm. Bavendamm is the family’s “in-house” historian, having written no fewer than three commissioned histories of the Mohn family and the Bertelsmann Corporation.

As so happens, he is also an open revisionist, who calls World War II “Roosevelt’s War” and suggests — à la contemporary 9/11 conspiracy theorists writing on George W. Bush — that Franklin Delano Roosevelt intentionally permitted the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to occur. Bavendamm has even written a book on the subject with the curious title Roosevelt’s War 1937-45 and the Puzzle of Pearl Harbor [Roosevelts Krieg 1937-45 und das Rätsel von Pearl Harbor].

“With the events of December 7-8, 1941 [i.e., the attack on Pearl Harbor], Roosevelt … had achieved his most important aims,” Bavendamm has written in an essay on the subject [German link], “America’s entry into the War occurred with the enthusiastic consent of the overwhelming majority of the American people — … Roosevelt had finally convinced them that it was their sacred duty, guns in hand to defend freedom, democracy, and prosperity around the world.” (For more on Bavendamm, see Hersch Fischler and John Friedman’s “Bertelsmann’s Revisionist” here.)

The theory that the Pearl Harbor attack was a set-up is, incidentally, standard neo-Nazi fare. Interestingly enough, in his infamous “God Damn America!” sermon, Obama’s longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright invokes precisely this theory as apparently well-established fact: “The government lied about Pearl Harbor too,” he says. “They knew the Japanese were going to attack. Governments lie.”

The Obama team and the Mohns would undoubtedly say that it is scandalous to suggest that the Mohns were using their millions to influence the American presidency or that Obama could possibly be corrupted. (...) >>>

Be that is may, the Ayn Rand/Stephen Hicks school of philosophy never misses target. Mutual attraction apart, follow the irrationals, follow the collectivists, follow America hatred, and sooner or later one ends up in places where bodies have been piling up, eventual good intentions notwithstanding.



- Filed on Articles in "Revisionism" -

The German Revolution

The present is a review of an episode in "The Orientalist" by Tom Reiss, a thoroughly and uniquely researched work that accounts hitherto less known historical and personal facts. Set during the interbellum, it chronicles a fascinating and remarkable story, encompassing four empires, three continents, three religions, two revolutions and two world wars. Earlier posts were "History Class: of agit-prop, revolution and terror!"

On Monday, 11th November 1918, delegates from the new Social Democratic government of Germany officially signed the armistice, ending Germany's part in the Great War 1914-1918. The Kaiser moved to comfortable exile in The Netherlands.

But mob rule reigned Germany. Leftist leader Emil Eichhorn, self-appointed chief of the People's Revolutionary Berlin Police Department - personally freed 650 prisoners from police headquarters at the head of a mob. Others seized newspaper offices, government buildings, stores, and telegraph offices.

The demobilising army agreed not to oppose the government, in exchange for a free hand in quelling the revolutionary unrest. The government took the responsibility and the blame for the humiliating surrender, while simultaneously delegating political power - the state's monopoly of force - to Rightist officers.

As the army demobilised in Berlin, all moral constraint melted away. Here's an account of artist George Grosz: "The city was dark, cold and full of rumours. The streets were wild ravines haunted by murderers and cocaine peddlers ... People denied all knowledge but whispered about secret manoeuvres by the Black Reichswehr or a newly formed Red Army." Bursts of machine-gun fire and hand-grenade explosions were common. Grosz: "Inhabitants (...) went up on the roof to shoot pigeons and people. Their sense of proportion (...) got misplaced."

Three hundred people perished each day from influenza alone. Demobilised soldiers started selling their weapons on the streets. Those who held on to their arms followed their unit commanders into Mafia-style, loosely connected militias, known as the Freikorps (Free Corps), a proto type of the later Waffen SS, but originally consisting of volunteers in the Wars of Liberation against Napoleon in 1813-1815.

It was more than just the Red menace which motivated the Freikorps, their originators being the ancestors of all guerilla fighters and revolutionary insurgents of the next century. An even earlier connection identified them with the Teutonic Knights. They were anxious to prove themselves worthy of the medieval battles in the East against Poles and Tartars.

The Western powers restricted the German military, but motivated by fear of the Soviet revolutionary threat, refrained from disarming and restraining the Freikorps. In 1919 the Freikorps spontaneously and without orders moved against Poland, Lithuania and Latvia - the same countries the Nazis re-invaded in 1941.

Despite their symbolism and ancestry the Freikorps did not succeed in turning the tide of the Whites against the Reds and descended on a city in chaos, armed to the teeth, wreaking havoc on the new republic.

The revolutionary neighbourhoods were attacked without restraint. The front was brought to civilian society. This maintained the fantasy that the war had not really ended. Unarmed civilians had become the enemy. It "was a lesson in local brutality and cold-bloodedness that prepared many of them for work as storm troopers or concentration-camp guards in the years to come."

A footnote provides an important psycho-pathological context: "Many returning soldiers, no matter their political disposition, would display signs of sociopathy. Homicides and rapes became commonplace in postwar Berlin, brutal acts committed by men with no previous criminal record (...)"

"The panic evoked in Germany by the fate of Russia drove so deep into the psyche of ordinary Germans that they could not see that the forces of the new Right were equally hostile to bourgeois values like law, order and moral restraint. The Freikorps ethic, every bit as revolutionary as that of the Bolsheviks, masqueraded behind a false aura of conservatism and pacification.

Real conservatives believed in the value of traditions, but the Freikorps believed exactly the opposite - for them, the Great War had proved that the morality and social structure of peacetime were corrupt and meaningless. The politics behind the war had been a fraud, but the fighting had been real, and in this reality, the 'New Man' of the Right-wing revolution was born."

Author of 'Storm of Steel' and 'Battle As Inner Experience' Ernst Jünger hailed the 'storm soldier': "the coming of a whole new race, smart, strong and filled with will, to save Europe from its liberal delusions". "For this New Man, as for the Red revolutionaries, the legal and moral foundations of society were mere bourgeois squeamishness. At the front, only the fundamental values of bravery, ruthlessness, and camaraderie mattered - and the fundamental precept of Freikorps ideology: all society is the front."

The more the Freikorps suppressed the revolution, the faster it spread. Bolshevik cells and councils (Soviets) sprang up in towns and cities across Germany. The Munich Soviet was led by a former mental patient who wrote threatening letters to the Pope and declared war on Switzerland for failing to provide a shipment of locomotives.

In April 1919 the Bolshevik triumvirate led by Lenin associates made an attempt to launch Red Terror. Bourgeois and local aristocrats (every locale was supposed to have one, in the absence of which the village headmaster was supposed to volunteer) were jailed, property was confiscated, opposition presses smashed and schools shut down - "though this was not a real Red Terror but more of Red Terror manqué. But in the event of insufficient ruthlessness on the part of the German Left, the German Right was only too happy to fill the void."

The Freikorps attacked Munich as if it were a foreign city. The Reds held the town for three days, at the end of which more than a thousand were shot, including seminary students.

The next year saw a coup by Dr Kapp and General Ludendorf. According to an anecdote Corporal Hitler came too late to join it. The ousted Social Democratic government being unable to turn out the Freikorps against the Freikorps, called for a general strike. This succeeded, sending the putschists fleeing to Sweden, upon which the Spartacists raised a 80,000 strong 'Red Army of the Ruhr' in order to seize the mining and heavy industry in that area. The reinstated Social Democratic government retaliated by setting the Freikorps loose on Berlin. The Reds in the Ruhr were crushed.

"Finally, the major disturbances ended, though street battles and small uprisings continued to break out in towns across the fatherland. In the spring of 1921" as the protagonist of "The Orientalist" crossed the border into Germany, the country had fallen into uneasy quiet ...

- More excerpts from Tom Reiss' "The Orientalist" on the history of the two Socialist movements in next posts.

- Up next: Both Sir Winston S. Churchill in "Memoirs of the Second World War" and Tom Reiss' in "The Orientalist" touch on one of the most colourful people of the interbellum, Hitler's Master of Ceremonies.

- Filed on Articles in "History Compiled", cat. Culture, Art, History -

Ryanair and the EU ...

Michael O'Leary, the charismatic boss of Ryanair, is an angry man. Reacting to the multiple legal actions taken against its low cost aerial company, he didn't hesitate to accuse EU's institutions of corruption.

Well, a honeymoon between Ryanair and EU isn't for tomorrow. Proof is that all available actions against Ryanair have been tried, especially the ones for receiving illegal allowances from airports managements, while all actions taken by Ryanair against other companies for the same reasons (Alitalia, Lufthansa, Air France) have not.

Yet Ryanair keeps on growing, despite all endeavours to pull it up short. Ryanair employs 4,800 people and is Europe most profitable carrier. In 2008 the number of passengers is expected to overtake British Airways' worldwide total.

O'Leary's USP is simple: low fares. Ryanair's average ticket costs €41 (£27), compared to €62 (£41) on easyJet, or €268 (£178) on British Airways.

The EU's attitude towards Ryanair is more than questionable. Perfect example is the merger between Ryanair and Aer Lingus. The EU anti trust authorities rejected in June Ryanair's takeover bid for rival Irish carrier Aer Lingus, ruling that a combined operation would create a Ryanair monopoly in Ireland.

Yet the EU in this decade has approved a string of other European mergers involving Air France, Dutch carrier KLM, Lufthansa and the defunct Swissair. Clearly there is a double standard: the European Commission refuses a merger for "local reasons" while weeks before, it approved the merger of four big companies operating all over Europe. Indeed, the same logic wasn't applied when the merger Thomas Cook/ My Travel and TUI/ First Choice was approved, creating a real monopoly over seaside resort tourism within Europe.

With regard to Ryanair and Aer Lingus, O'Leary claims the move is politically motivated and is made to appease politicians in Dublin. The Ryanair boss says he will appeal against the expected decision at the EU's Court of First Instance.

He says "This decision is politically motivated, designed to appease the narrow interests of the Irish government, which was the only party, other than Aer Lingus itself, to object to the merger," O'Leary told media sources.

Ryanair has been subjected to a series of EU investigations into its deals with far-flung, small airports, most recently when investigators began probing whether Ryanair's exceptionally cheap contracts with three airports in Germany and Finland violated competition laws. The EU is also looking into Ryanair's contracts with airports on the Mediterranean islands of Sardinia and Malta.

But while Ryanair is investigated, Michael O'Leary only gets refusals when requesting other companies to be investigated for the same reasons. So Ryanair is suing the European Commission over its refusal to conduct a probe into German government funding for a Munich airport terminal, whether it amounts to illegal state aid for Lufthansa AG.

For the past two years Ryanair has accused European leaders of demonstrating bias in favor of the continent's national flag carriers, citing a range of government financial support, benefiting Lufthansa, Air France, Alitalia and Olympic Airways of Greece.

O'Leary said Lufthansa and its partner airlines enjoyed "exclusive use" of the terminal, which was built with more than €1 billion (US$1.4 billion) in state aid. He said the terminal had run up losses exceeding €100 million (US$140 million) annually.

"No private investor would have invested in the loss-making facility and then granted exclusive access to just one airline. Lufthansa is therefore receiving substantial state aid at Munich Airport, which distorts competition in the European air transport market," O'Leary said.

"Munich Airport's refusal to allow Ryanair to use this facility has subjected passengers in Bavaria to the stranglehold of Lufthansa's high fares and fuel surcharges," he said. Ryanair mounted a similar lawsuit last week against the European Commission, alleging it has ignored a previous Ryanair complaint against French government policies that allegedly favor Air France. That lawsuit was also filed in the European Court of First Instance.

"The French government's operation of massively discounted domestic airport fees in France — almost all of which supports Air France — amounts to approximately €1 billion (US$1.4 billion) of illegal state aid benefiting Air France, yet the commission has refused to do anything about this for the last eighteen months," O'Leary said.

Ryanair also applied to the regional administrative Court in Lazio, Italy for an immediate injunction to overturn the recent unlawful attempt by ENAC (the Italian civil aviation Authority) to restrict capacity at Rome Ciampino Airport by almost 30% from November 2007.

The Irish airline says that in so doing, the Italian authorities are trying to support the terminally ill Alitalia by blocking low fares and competition in Rome. Ryanair has also submitted a complaint to the European Commission, asking it to immediately intervene on behalf of consumers to prohibit this unlawful reduction of capacity at Rome’s secondary airport.

When asked if he was not considering buying Alitalia, O'Leary answered that he was not interested, even for free! Too much trade union and political influence over this company, he said. And he has a point.

What we see with Ryanair is the evil role played by the EU. While the worst performing companies get protection, the best are taking a beating. The EU prefers spending time and money to keep ill managed carriers afloat, instead of encouraging brilliant businessmen.

And what about European citizens! Their tax money is wasted, while the EU tries to force them into expensive air travel!

The EU: ill advised, incompetent, corrupt, an illegal super state.

- Filed on Articles in "The Economics and Monetary Dossier", cat. Economics -

The Deplorable Taste of Plebs

The obverse, messy side of democracy is represented by some of the abominable choices made by the people. Not only did they vote in George Bush - twice! - but they have no perception whatsoever when heavy becomes too heavy - which is why we shall see it phased out in the coming years! Surely, humanity has evolved well beyond such chaotic processes by now!

Here's a prime example why an enlightened oligarchy stands a much better chance of preserving the environment, run trains on time, as well as guarantee the arrangement of public space in conformity with the politically correct aesthetics as laid out by the expert coterie at the U.N., who went out of their way to pass judgement on the matter, as far afield as New Zealand!

EUX TV: "Nobel laureate Grass deplores bridge construction near Dresden"

"Nobel literature laureate Guenter Grass, 80, led a protest rally Sunday at a controversial German highway bridge (...) four kilometres east of the growing German city of Dresden, to end long traffic detours. (...) UNESCO disapproves of the bridge crossing the Elbe river in a 20- kilometre-long section of gardens and palaces that are recognized as a World Heritage Site.

Caption: photo by architect Adrian Welch (1991)

City residents voted overwhelmingly for the bridge in a 2005 referendum.

"Something here is being spitefully spoiled that does not belong to people of Dresden alone," said leftist novelist Grass through a loud-hailer as 500 supporters cheered. "Dresden belongs to the whole of Germany." (and beyond ...)

On Saturday, police dragged away 60 protesters who sat on the spot as tree-fellers with chainsaws arrived to remove trees growing near the riverbank in the bridge path.

Conservationists say the four-lane Waldschloesschen bridge's steel arch will spoil a pretty view. >>>

Quote of the Day:

"The invention of democracy is a crying shame (...)
A majority can never replace the Man."
Adolf Hitler,
"Mein Kampf"

Filed on Articles in "The Post Democratic Preferences of the Neotots"

Berlin-Tehran: the Counter-Enlightenment Axis

Earlier this year Leeds University bowed for the forces of obscurantism and intimidation in cancelling a series of events on the theme "Hitler’s Legacy: Islamic Antisemitism in the Middle East", involving Matthias Küntzel, a Hamburg-based author and political scientist who specialises in the threat of Islamic fundamentalism. Since the 9/11 demo "Stop the Islamization of Europe" was prohibited in Brussels by the Socialist mayor of that city under the excuse of 'security fears', this seems to have become the standard excuse.

Nevertheless, Leeds University at some point retrieved their moral and intellectual backbone and reissued the invitation to Küntzel, who this week finally held the oration on his new book "Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11" to an audience of about 120 people.

Melanie Phillips in a recent post on the subject "The Nazi roots of Muslim antisemitism" writes: "Muslims despised Jews as second-class citizens, but they did not see them as a global conspiracy. They do now - and that’s because of the influence of the Nazis. Key to this was the alliance during the 1930s between the Arab Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al Husseini, and the Nazis."

Küntzel: "Islamism ... was established as a mass movement by the Muslim Brotherhood, which stands in relation to Al Qaeda as the Bolsheviks did to communism. The Brotherhood is a revolutionary political movement focused almost entirely on Zionism and the Jews. It is inspired by two sources: the Koran and Islamic theology, plus Nazi doctrine and influences, using not only Nazi-like patterns of action and slogans but also, historically, Nazi funding."

In "Yes my Friends, I will Call for War" we have seen how historical, colonial ties led Nazism and Fascism into the Middle East where it fell on the fertile breeding ground of Islamic collectivism and subjectivism, the traits it has in common with the European - overwhelmingly Germanic - Counter-Enlightenment movement, which was a reaction started by Swiss born Frenchman Rousseau against the rationality of the Enlightenment, giving later rise to philosophies in the same vein by Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, through to the Nazist Heidegger and postmoderns Foucault et al.

Phillips quotes Küntzel as follows: "For Islamists, the issue at stake is not the welfare of individual Palestinians, but the abolition of Enlightenment, reason, and individual freedom – achievements whose spread is attributed primarily to the Jews."

So, there you have it: the Enlightenment is a Jewish project! Nothing could be further from the truth, but it is one of the lies Middle East conspiracy theories seem to thrive on, and another interface of Marxism and Nazism with Islam: the aversion to Reality and Reason.

Moving the attention to Shi'ism Phillips further quotes: "This Nazi/Islamist propaganda also made an impact in Iran, where it reached a certain Ayatollah Khomeini: even the German consulate in Tehran was surprised by the success of this propaganda.

"Throughout the country spiritual leaders are coming out and saying ‘that the twelfth Imam has been sent into the world by God in the form of Adolf Hitler’ we learn from a report to Berlin in February 1941. So, ‘without any legation involvement, an increasingly effective form of propaganda has arisen, which sees the Führer and Germany as the answer to every prayer… One way to promote this trend is sharply to emphasize Muhammad’s struggle against the Jews in the olden days and that of the Führer today.’"

It therefore may not come as a very big surprise that today the same Axis is revived in reaction to French President Nicolas Sarkozy's demand that in the event that the U.N. Security Council should prove incapable of measures in the Iran nuclear issue, Europeans take action against the recalcitrant Iranian stance.

It is only by applying massive economic pressure, Sarkozy argued, that "a catastrophic alternative" could still be avoided, "either the Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran." The policy presented by Sarkozy is in fact the only non-military option available. It is only the European Union - in casu Germany - that is in a position to force a change in Iranian policy without the use of military force.

In his article "Berlin and Vienna Stand Against the West: European Divisions in the Iranian Bomb" in World Politics Review above mentioned German author Matthias Küntzel writes: "The former Director of the German-Iranian Chamber of Commerce in Tehran, Michael Tockuss, drew attention to Germany's importance for Iran when he noted, in an interview with the German magazine Focus , that "around two-thirds of Iranian industry is essentially equipped with plant and machinery of German manufacture. The Iranians are thoroughly dependent upon German replacement parts and suppliers."

Here's the European reaction to Sarkozy's proposal for a unilateral European boycott against Iran: "... Germany and Austria ... have rejected it. ... German Chancellor Angela Merkel is supposed in principle to support the Sarkozy proposal, but has explained Germany's hesitations by reference to her Social Democratic coalition partners."

The cooperative Counter-Enlightenment Axis and their inability of spotting objective Evil never fails! Their alternative: "... Germany, Austria, and Russia are prepared now to accept Iran's nuclear facilities as long as they are placed under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). They have thus effectively shelved the strategy hitherto pursued by the U.N. Security Council."

"By opposing the prompt passage of a new sanctions resolution, Germany has, in effect, departed from the Western block in order to make common cause with China and Russia against the core Western powers. It is remarkable that in taking this unprecedented step it is coming to the aid of a government that denies the Holocaust and wants to eliminate Israel."

"The question of whether a country or society has drawn the correct lessons from the history of National Socialism is not to be answered by pretty speeches, but only in practice. As concerns Germany's and Austria's Iran policy, the answer is clearly "no." Iran's progress in obtaining a nuclear capacity casts the shadow of a potential nuclear Holocaust over the Middle East. Berlin and Vienna are standing on the front lines: not however with those who are attempting to avert the catastrophe, but rather with those who are, for whatever reasons, paving the way for it."

Amorality, as a result of the rejection of Reality as posited by Counter-Enlightenment Axis is today alive and well, and unfaltering.

Update: A lot of material is suddenly surfacing about Amin al Husseini. Not only was he the Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem, he also appears to have been directly involved in Ottoman atrocities committed against Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians in the aftermath of the World War I (see comment by Politics and Free Thinking). It's hushed up, but Yassir Arafat was related to him. For the completeness of the files, here are the relevant links - Hat tip Jack:

- "Tell the Children the Truth"
- "Pearls of Wisdom" This is an important historic document. Please let us know if it ever fails, or is removed.

"The Hate Preacher" on Cellulose

German English language culture site Sign and Sight reviews how in the movie "Hamburg Lessons" Romuald Karmakar uses radical reduction to reveal the Islamist mindset.

"Television images provide no answers here. They do not show how and what Islamists think. Romuald Karmakar's film "Hamburger Lektionen" (Hamburg lessons) makes this thinking visible by opting for extreme asceticism. The only thing you see in the actor Manfred Zapatka."

"Wearing a black suit and dark shirt, he reads the answers that the Imam in Hamburg's Al-Quds mosque (more) gave in 2000 in two "lessons" to questions that arose among the believers gathered in the prayer room. The only trace elements of any "acting" come when Zapatza reaches for some notes which are handed to him by a shadow or are placed on a stool next to him."

"Mohammed Fazazi's lessons were recorded anonymously on video and distributed as propaganda material. The film's script is nothing more than the German translation. Zapatka reads the text in a neutral and distanced voice, he presents it, makes it known."

"Fazazi, who came to Hamburg at the end of the nineties, was given a 30-year sentence in Morocco for abetting the suicide bombings in Casablanca. Three of the pilots responsible for 9/11 were regulars at his Hamburg mosque. There is no way of ascertaining whether they attended the lessons in 2000. But it is not ridiculous to imagine that in the dingy building in Hamburg's red-light district – twice the film shows a view of the street for a few seconds – a monstrous crime ripened that was to become a caesura in the world's history ... >>>