Sunday, 22 May 2016

KURIER: The writer Thomas Glavinic got lots of credit when on Facebook he warned against describing FP voters as "Nazis". 
I'm bored of this debate. I ask what difference it makes whether someone who votes for Nazis is a Nazi or not. Hofer is one. Full stop. ( distances itself from this remark.) You do not join a German national association, you do not wear cornflowers in your buttonhole, you do not wear white socks in a suit if you are not a Nazi. Because if you do all of that and you are not a Nazi then you are a total idiot. Well, Hofer isn't a total idiot. Let's say he gets a million votes. How do we describe these votes? We describe them as votes for a Nazi. Whether the voters who gave these votes describes themselves as Nazis or patriots or as a people (Volk) or whatever is completely irrelevant! ... But I even believe that most of them aren't Nazis. Really not! They are fascists. Bad enough. Or idiots. Also bad enough.  
...after 1945 it was considered heroic patriotism to have fought against the Nazis. That is the problem: the patriotism of the Second Republic has its historical roots in anti-German Austrian fascism. This is why the Strache [tn: leader of Freedom Party] voters are indignant when you call them Nazis. They are patriots who don't know that they are fascists, they do not understand what's so bad about patriotism, and have learned that fascism is the greatest patriotism. As Austrian patriots they also elect Nazis, if they are, who serve their Austro-fascist mentality and say to them "Austria first".

When I read this I didn't know the author was Jewish. But there is something in Jewish discourse, a quality of alienness; a peculiarly hard-edged asperity; a lack of empathy with the people they live among; as well as that note of unEuropean, Oriental hysteria creeping in that is often enough to give the game away. I Googled Robert Menasse and found what I expected to find. In an interview with the Juedische Allgemeine (link) he said: "My grandparents were fully assimilated Vienna Jews."

I also found an article in which he slavers over the death of Europe's nations which, in practice, of course means the death of Europe's peoples.
As utopian as it may sound to many, the notion of the necessary expiry of nations and the idea of a post-national Europe cannot be described as a utopia. Something that has realized itself over sixty years, in concrete steps in a concrete place, namely on our continent, cannot be a utopia. 
On the contrary, in the light of historical experience and what we can see happening today, the belief that nations can be rescued, and that they alone are able to guarantee freedom, autonomy, the rule of law, peace and security, can only be described as a negative utopia. It is the morbid power of the nations, the aggression with which they confront their diagnosed death, that has caused the European Union's current crisis. 
Although the nations no longer function, a developed post-national Europe does not yet exist. Moreover, we are now even afraid to imagine such a thing. At the same time, it is absolutely obvious that the parameters of our lives, all the processes and developments that we must form in order not to become passive victims, all the phenomena and problems for which we must find political responses, have long been transnational. The chain of value production is transnational, as are investments and profit returns, energy production, security problems, communications, the dangers connected to modern communications technologies, for example surveillance and control, ecological problems and so on. None of these stop at national borders, nor can they be managed within national borders in sovereign independence. 
... I cannot understand what should be so wrong with a transnational community of solidarity, in an era when globalization, though unstoppable, needs to be actively shaped. I cannot understand why, after all our experiences with nationalism, overcoming nationalism should be a bad idea. I cannot understand why today's leaders consistently refuse to mention the ideas of their predecessors. Is it forgetfulness, misunderstanding, denial? Why, when these ideas indicate ways out of a crisis that the leaders have otherwise failed to deal with? Oh, right. They want to get re-elected. Nationally. 
One thing is clear: the nation-states are going down. The sooner we get used to this fact, the better our democratic and autonomous future will be. Otherwise there will be soot and ashes all over again, suffering, ruins, scapegoats murdered en masse, the real sinners dead too. We will stand distraught before the smoking ruins and murmur: "This must never happen again!"

And here he is calling for a borderless Europe, with the immediate use of a disease metaphor to describe the wish of the goy peoples to exist, another typical element of Jewish discourse.
In political psychology, even schizophrenia is normal. When citizens of any state are at home, they want to know that their state borders are defended and policed as rigorously as possible. But when they travel abroad, they want borders to be as porous as possible, and ideally invisible.
But it's not just internally that he thinks Europe should be border-free. He wants unlimited numbers of brownskins to come too, and demands that Europeans just hand over their ancestral homelands to them.
What if refugees in Europe were to be allocated building land neighbouring the European cities, but at a sufficient distance to maintain ‘otherness’? That would create a space of potential for real life plans and modes of living existing alongside each other.

In this way, New Damascus and New Aleppo, New Madaya and so on could arise in the middle of Europe. Or New Diyarbakir or New Erbil and New Dohuk for the Kurdish refugees. Perhaps also New Kandahar or New Kunduz for the Afghan refugees, or New Enugu or New Ondo for the Nigerian refugees. 
Europe is large (and will soon be empty) enough to build a dozen or more cities for new arrivals. Then we don’t need to stress over integration. We don’t need to cram the refugees into our – sometimes dilapidated – suburbs or into the – sometimes sprawling and desolate – no man’s landscapes in the countryside between them. 
We don’t have to concentrate them in refugee homes to be burnt down to warm the hearts of patriotic nationalists. We don’t have to play off their rights to housing and work in their new homeland against housing and jobs for the lowest quartile of our own society. We don’t need to rub up against each other and rub each other up the wrong way. In short: we don’t need integration. 
We respect ‘otherness’ – and we let the new arrivals be in their ‘otherness’. The new arrivals then look after themselves, in accordance with their culture, cuisine, music and social structures. They recreate their cities in Europe, their squares, their schools, their theatres, their hospitals, their radio stations and their newspapers. 
And EU law applies to everyone. And that is important:Aequum ius, equality before the law – for old EU citizens as well as for the new arrivals. Instead of ‘Leitkultur’, civic rights for all. 
Europe gives building land as support to get started – improved land, that is, land already connected up to infrastructural services such as energy, ICT and transport, but otherwise free for development by the new arrivals. All the money that we now give out for integration and language courses, for fences and border protection, for security and policing, can be given by Europe to the refugees to help them make a start. 
As urban construction is not a quick process, Europe, with the support of the UNHCR, can help to begin with by providing temporary dwellings – that is, exactly the kind of container dwelling that is provided now. Town planners who are involved with refugee camps and who have researched them report that refugee camps soon turn intotowns, as long as the refugees are left in peace. Building towns seems to be human nature. 
... In short: what is needed is a multi-coloured Europe, proximity with respect, an alliance of alterity under the same European law, a creative network of diversity.

The last two articles I quoted from are quite long but well worth reading in their entirety if you have time for insights into the kind of mentality that has shaped the evolution of the EU.


  1. "In this way, New Damascus and New Aleppo, New Madaya and so on could arise in the middle of Europe. Or New Diyarbakir or New Erbil and New Dohuk for the Kurdish refugees. Perhaps also New Kandahar or New Kunduz for the Afghan refugees, or New Enugu or New Ondo for the Nigerian refugees.

    We respect ‘otherness’ – and we let the new arrivals be in their ‘otherness’. The new arrivals then look after themselves, in accordance with their culture, cuisine, music and social structures. They recreate their cities in Europe, their squares, their schools, their theatres, their hospitals, their radio stations and their newspapers."

    He is basically calling for states within the states. He sounds like a parasite to me. His main concern is to secure his group inside the body of someone else. There is nothing utopian in that, thats quite selfish goal. So he calls for removing the immune system (nationalism), and for importing various other bacteria, who should then feed on the organism together with him.

  2. He is a classic Parasite. Oh, and evil, too.

  3. La gente que ha leído un poco, sabe, que el término reciente, famoso, de NS ( Nacional Socialista ) es sinónimo de identidad occidental, por tanto igual a cristiandad.

    Pero solo unos pocos sujetos, pueden creerse estar en posesión de la verdad absoluta, es por eso, que, determinadas comunidades judías ( en general el Judaísmo o Sionismo ) se les otorgue el derecho a decir ( y utilizar ) determinadas expresiones que han dado origen a una nación inventada, previa acción internacional de logros en la mala prensa ( ó Famosa Propaganda ).

    Éste artículo podría enlazar con :

    Hemos repasado, investigado, los términos en que se basan asociaciones y grupos en contra del Racismo, y de nomenclaturas como ¨ Delitos de Odio ¨, y es asombroso y esclarecedor lo encontrado.

    Odio, es sinónimo de enemigo, y éste de rival. Es evidente que los políticos occidentales se han vendido al mejor postor, y ello ha producido que cosas absurdas sean declaradas leyes en Occidente, pero que siendo absurdas no significa que se incumplan. Una contradicción absoluta.

    Así, ser rival de alguien es permitido, pero ser o causar odio : NO.

    Lo podemos atisbar en en el deporte, en asuntos laborales o profesionales, o incluso en niños de corta edad. Por esa regla de tres las competiciones deportivas de cualquier disciplina existente o a inventar tendrían que ser prohibidas y sus simpatizantes multados por el simple hecho de ser rivales ( al competir en algo, con otros ; ligas deportivas, trofeos, etc ).

    Es un asunto de orden técnico, que se ha escapado a los expertos, y la inmensa mayoría de la gente ( en Occidente ) ha dado por válido y aceptar, siendo totalmente una aberración que alguien sea multado, encarcelado o perseguido por ¨ Delitos de odio ¨ pues éste ( el odio ) es un sentimiento natural e intuitivo de las personas. Incluso aparece en algunas religiones no democráticas, pero que de igual manera son anti-democráticas y consentidas. Algo surrealista.

    Las tres primeras acepciones de los Diccionarios más importantes de lengua castellana ( incluidos de editoriales extranjeras ) admiten sinónimos a odio como : antipatía, animadversión, etc.

    Nos llevan a la guerra Diversity, y nosotros somos los buenos, se puede intuir ; ( por lo del odio ) con la legalidad vigente. Lo peor es que esas leyes de Delitos de Odio están en vigor actualmente en muchos países de Occidente. Así que rivalidad es sinónimo de odio. ( Voluntario o involuntario, directo u indirecto ).

    Protegerse, siempre. Saludos cordiales.