Sunday, October 25, 2015

Pax Germania vs. Pax Islamia

In the 1994 TV movie, Fatherland, Germany is depicted as having won World War II, at least on the European continent, which now has been consolidated into a single political entity, Germania, or the Greater German Reich, stretching  from the Mediterranean to Finland (see a summary of the story here).

In April 1964, Germania is preparing to celebrate Hitler’s 75th birthday. By 1964 standards, Berlin looks prosperous and completely rebuilt after the failed Allied bombing. A former German U-Boat commander, played by Rutger Hauer, now is a top detective in the criminal division of an SS that resembles a uniformed FBI. He investigates a murder which ultimately leads to his discovery of a cover-up of the Nazi “final solution”: that all the Jews were exterminated, though the government maintains the fiction that they were all “resettled” in Russian territory conquered from the U.S.S.R.

At the same time, Hitler has persuaded President Joseph P. Kennedy to pay a “reconciliation” call in Germania and meet with him. The discovery of the “resettlement” fiction and of a series of murders of the Nazis responsible for the Holocaust would squelch any amicable relations between the U.S. and Germania. The still operative Gestapo goes to work to silence anyone who would be able to jeopardize that “peace process,” beginning with the murders of all the Nazi higher-ups who took part in the Wannsee Conference. All these men had to die because they otherwise could have spilled the beans to the Americans about what really happened to the Jews – or at least blackmailed the Nazi government.

I have watched the TV movie and read Robert Harris’s 1992 novel  on which the  TV movie is loosely based. They both err in several key ways in the “alternative history” genre, and the storylines of the novel and the movie also diverge at critical points. But two aspects of both the novel and the movie, however, I found incredible even as projected “alternative histories.” They are, first, that the U.S.S.R. would have survived long enough to fight Hitler in a guerilla war in Eastern Russia clear up to 1964; in fact, it survived thanks to the aid FDR sent it, often at the expense of equipping our own forces during WWII; and, second, that Joseph P. Kennedy would have been very rattled and outraged by the discovery that the Nazis had actually sent all the European Jews “up in smoke.

After all, it was his belief that if the Nazis could not be appeased enough and if war broke out, the Jews were to be blamed, consequently scuttling plans to develop pacific relations and commercial ties with Nazi Germany. Kennedy also hated the British, but that’s another story.

Those caveats were in the way of wading into the subject, not of Pax Germania, but of Pax Islamia.

Apparently Germany – and also Europe – is to be dominated and policed, not by clean-cut, close-shaven, neatly-outfitted by Hugo Boss, Führer-saluting Nazi brutes, but instead by not so clean, slovenly garbed, bearded, fist-shaking, Shahada-reciting Allah-worshipping brutes. Or by Muslims, whose immigrating cousins and nephews are already being called by native Germans and others “Nazis” because of their behavior and airs of superiority over native non-Muslims. The symbiosis between Nazi and Islamic ideologies has been well-documented, so this startling reversal of events should not come as a surprise to anyone.

Angela Merkel’s plan to “unify” Europe vis-à-vis the resettling throughout Europe, by force or by extortion or by naked property expropriation, the uncounted hundreds of thousands of “refugees,” “asylum-seekers,” and other migrants from the Mideast, Africa, and other pestholes, bears strong similarities to Hitler’s plans for Europe. Had Hitler won the war, or at least have emerged from it via a cease-fire or truce, he would have been able to follow his plan of Lebensraum, or to create (or seize) more “living space” for Germans.

Now, because of that symbiosis between Nazism and Islamism or Islamic supremacist doctrine, I don’t think it’s too ironic that Merkel wishes to turn the tables and be the enabler of the Muslim Brotherhood’s general plan for conquering Europe (and the U.S.) by finding more “living space” for Muslims, and mandating it through the European Union.

It’s not for nothing that Geert Wilders compared Hitler’s Mein Kampf with the Koran.

The British Guardian, a left-leaning newspaper, carried in spite of itself a detailed, accurate description of how Merkel want to provide Lebensraum (in Arabic, مساحة المعيشة) to the Muslims, in Ian Traynor’s October 23rd article, Germany to push for compulsory EU quotas to tackle refugee crisis.”

Germany is to push for more ambitious and extensive common European Union policies on the refugee crisis, according to policymakers in Berlin, with compulsory and permanent quotas for sharing the distribution of probably hundreds of thousands of people who will arrive directly from the Middle East.

Also on Berlin’s agenda are new European powers replacing some national authority over border control, and the possible raising of a special EU-wide levy to fund the policies.

“Push” was the right verb to use. Chancellor Merkel, as head of Europe’s largest and most prosperous nation, can be pushy. But, if Germany is willing to make itself miserable by welcoming hundreds of thousands of welfare-seekers, the misery must be spread around. It’s only fair that others suffer, as well.

Angela Merkel appears determined to prevail, as she grapples with a crisis that will likely define her political legacy. The German chancellor is said to be angry with the governments of eastern and central Europe which are strongly opposed to being forced to take in refugees. She is said to resent that these EU member states are pleading for “solidarity” against the threats posed by EU government leaders agreed last month to share responsibility for 160,000 asylum seekers already in the EU, redistributing them from Greece and Italy over two years.

But the decision had to be pushed to a majority vote, overruling the dissenters, mainly in eastern Europe, and with the Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orban, accusing Merkel of “moral imperialism.” It is highly unusual in the EU for sensitive issues with such deep national political impact to be settled by majority voting. But Berlin appears prepared to do this if no consensus can be reached.

The dissenters had to be overruled, especially those who don’t wish to see their countries despoiled by hordes of barbarians prone to riot, rape and robbery. Imperialism? Eastern Europeans have already had a taste of German and Soviet imperialism, so they can't be blamed for not wanting another round of it.

The opponents of quotas insist last month’s decision was a one-off. But according to policymakers in Berlin, Merkel now wants to go further, shifting the emphasis of burden-sharing from redistribution of refugees inside the EU to those collecting en masse in other countries, notably Turkey, where more than 2 million Syrians are being hosted.

Under one proposal being circulated in Berlin, the EU would strike pacts with third countries, such as Turkey, agreeing to take large but unspecified numbers of refugees from them directly into Europe. In return, the third country would need to agree on a ceiling or a cap for the numbers it can send to Europe and commit to keeping all other migrants and refugees, and accommodate them humanely. This effectively means Europe would be financing large refugee camps in those third countries, which will also be obliged to take back any refugees who are not granted asylum in Europe.

Turkey? The same Turkey run by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, an Islamic supremacist who dreams of a new Ottoman Empire, who proclaimed that "Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers"? Yes, that authoritarian tyrant. Birds of a feather, indeed.

Merkel returned from talks on the issue with the Turkish leadership on Sunday seemingly convinced that Ankara was the key to her winning some relief on the toxic immigration issue. She is being criticized for ignoring human rights problems in her dealings with Turkey’s authoritarian leader, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. But according to people familiar with her thinking, she has concluded that, in terms of Turkey, the main third country source of migrants heading for Europe, interests trump values.

Principles? Values? They can be dispensed with. Turkey has always wanted to become part of the European Union and what better way to join it than striking a deal with the Crazy Kraut Kaffir? Shades of the Molotov–Ribbentrop “non-aggression pact” of 1939! An inconvenient historical fact that Merkel doubtless doesn’t choose to remember.

The plans being developed in Berlin and Brussels also include moves to “Europeanize” control of the EU’s external borders. This would entail national governments surrendering some of their powers on those frontiers and granting at least some authority over refugee admissions, detentions and deportation to EU bodies such as Frontex, the fledgling borders agency.

Some senior diplomats and officials in Brussels say this is an intrusion into national sovereignty which will be difficult for some governments to accept. Policymakers in Berlin are aware of the sensitivities, but appear of a mind to proceed by stealth in small steps.

There is always lots of play in a noose before it’s tightened around one’s neck. The trick is to tighten it slowly, so as not to alarm the victim and cause him to gag beforehand. And the noose’s knot must be a silken, Europeanized knot, the kind with which the British used to hang their aristocrats. Delusions among European leaders are the panacea of the day. Merkel can’t really mean it! Oh, but she does.

Forced to bow to the sharing of 160,000 refugees last month, several EU leaders took the view that this was a limited and temporary move that would not be repeated. But for Berlin, it is but a beginning in the formulation of pan-European asylum and immigration policies.

On Wednesday Juncker called a Brussels summit for Sunday for some EU and Balkan leaders to tackle the crisis in Croatia, Slovenia, and Austria since Hungary closed its borders to those arriving in the EU from Turkey and Greece via the Balkans.

The German push for taking people directly from places such as Turkey has the merit of cutting out of many of the smuggling rackets prospering from the mass movements and reducing the numbers of those risking the hazardous journeys from the Middle East to the borders of Europe. But it is far from clear that the plan to persuade third-country governments to agree to enforce a ceiling on the numbers allowed to go to the EU can work.

And, here comes the tax to pay for the noose and the executioner.

According to the thinking in Berlin, if the new package of policies must involve a European solution rather than a mish-mash of national strategies, it will also have to be financed at the European level, possibly through a special levy, since the billions involved would blow a gaping hole in the existing EU budget and national governments would balk at footing the bills.

Daniel Greenfield, in Sultan Knish, writes that Germany and other members of the EU want to retain their welfare states and eat the Muslims, too.  In his brutally frank assessment of the future of Europe, “The Death of Europe” of October 23rd, he remarks:

European leaders talk about two things these days; preserving European values by taking in Muslim migrants and integrating Muslim migrants into Europe by getting them to adopt European values.

It does not occur to them that their plan to save European values depends on killing European values.

That’s because Islamic values are diametrically opposite of European ones. Even the bad European ones, such as the Uncle Otto pays-for-everything welfare state including everyone’s retirement plans, which include those of Muslims who never paid anything into the system and never intended to.

Europe invested in the values of its welfare state. The Muslim world invested in large families. Europe expects the Muslim world to bail out its shrinking birth rate by working and paying into the system so that its aging population can retire. The Muslim migrants however expect Europe to subsidize their large families with its welfare state while they deal some drugs and chop off some heads on the side….

The European values that require Europe to commit suicide are about ideology, not language, culture or nationhood. But the incoming migrants don’t share that ideology. They have their own Islamic values.

Why should 23-year-old Mohammed work for four decades so that Hans or Fritz across the way can retire at 61 and lie on a beach in Mallorca? The idea that Mohammed would ever want to do such a thing out of love for Europe was a silly fantasy that European governments fed their worried citizens.

And now those same citizens are witnessing the fantasy colliding with reality. Greenfield’s essay on why Europe has doomed itself ought to win some kind of journalistic award. But it won't. Greenfield concludes:

Islamic values are not compatible with European values. Not only free speech and religious freedom, but even the European welfare state is un-Islamic. Muslims have a high birth rate because their approach to the future is fundamentally different from the European one….

Europe is drinking rat poison to cure a cold. Instead of changing its values, it’s trying to maintain them by killing itself. The Mohammed retirement plan won’t save European Socialism.

It will bury it.

And Europe, as well. All that will be left will be ashes, ruins, and corpses underfoot of millions of Muslims looking for a new place to “migrate.”

The United States.

No comments:

Post a Comment