Devolution

Who can answer this question?

What countries in the last fifty years went from a democracy to an Islamic state?

Have any of them become an Islamic state through a democratic election?

Wilders Announces "Facing Jihad" Conference in Jerusalem

Robert Spencer has posted at Jihad Watch the full text of Party of Freedom, the Netherlands, chairman Geert Wilders' September 25th address at the Four Seasons, New York, introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem in December. Wilders concisely describes to his audience the situation of a Europe abandoned by its political and cultural leaders and facing a capitulation to Islam that may arrive even sooner than expected:

All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.

But Wilders sees also the beginnings of hope in Europe:

Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I don’t think the public opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries.

Patriotic parties that oppose jihad are growing, against all odds. My own party debuted two years ago, with five percent of the vote. Now it stands at ten percent in the polls. The same is true of all smililary-minded parties in Europe. They are fighting the liberal establishment, and are gaining footholds on the political arena, one voter at the time.

Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together and exchange experiences. It may be the start of something big. Something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It might also be Europe’s last chance.

This December a conference will take place in Jerusalem. Thanks to Professor Aryeh Eldad, a member of Knesset, we will be able to watch Fitna in the Knesset building and discuss the jihad. We are organizing this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same boat together, and that Israel is part of our common heritage. Those attending will be a select audience. No racist organizations will be allowed. And we will only admit parties that are solidly democratic.

This conference will be the start of an Alliance of European patriots. This Alliance will serve as the backbone for all organizations and political parties that oppose jihad and Islamization. For this Alliance I seek your support.

As the US slips and slides towards an Obama presidency that will aide and abet Islamization in every form that it can get away with, cheered on by our own craven cultural "elites", we too must depend on the ability and willingness of enough real patriots to wake up, pay attention, educate themselves about the danger we face, speak out, and take action. Geert Wilders is once again taking a courageous and pivotal step in that direction by organizing this conference. He and all those who recognize this as yet another round in the death match between freedom and totalitarianism deserve our encouragement.

Eurabia: The Writing on the Wall for Those Still Willing to Read

In his article "Stumbling Toward Eurabia" in the Spring 2008 issue of The Journal of International Security Affairs, Alex Alexiev, vice president for research at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., presents, yet again, the cold, hard facts of the coming catastrophic Islamization of Europe for all those who missed, ignored, evaded, rationalized and screamed "racism!" at such predictions the first few thousand times around.

In the summer of 2004... the prominent academic scholar of Islam Bassam Tibi predicted [that]... in ten years Germany will be the scene of large running battles between police and gangs of marginalized Muslim youth, bringing cities like Berlin, Cologne, and Frankfurt to the brink of chaos. This will be the result... of a trend that is already visible. Muslims are not interested in integration. They are, in fact, obligated not to integrate by the radical Islamic ideology dominant in their communities, and live increasingly segregated in parallel societies. The main difference between 2004 and 2014, Tibi believed,would be that the highly marginalized Muslim population would have more than doubled to 10 million, sharia would have been gradually introduced to Germany and the Islam preached there would be even more radical and resemble Nazi totalitarianism.

A study of attitudes among young Muslims taken in December, 2007, discloses that 44% of the respondents hold fundamentalist Islamic beliefs and that 25% would engage in violence against non-Muslims. Such evidence is consistent with conditions in other parts of Europe as well. Alexiev rejects the leftist cant that this is the result of economic neglect and racial discrimination and argues that it is the resurgence of radical Islam, taking advantage of both the population decline and welfare-state policies of the West that created this potential for catastrophe. A compensatory rise in European birth rates is "virtually impossible" over the next 10-20 years and even if achieved within the next 30 years would come too late to prevent the negative effects of Islamization.

In other words, this problem can not be bred out of existence. Nor was it entirely under-bred into existence. As Alexiev points out, such population shortfalls are normally corrected through immigration, but the realities of immigration in Europe today have instead turned the problem into a crisis.

The official policy of virtually all EU governements is to discourage immigration from outside the EU except for highly skilled professionals and a few other categories, such as family reunification and political asylum. Despite these restrictions... legal and illegal immigration, estimated at over two million per annum... has not contributed to the amelioration of the continent's demographic and economic crises; rather, it is actually making things worse.

The problem is... the fact that much of it places additional burdens on the social welfare system rather than contributing to its improvement... because most of the new arrivals enter Europe either as part of the "migration chain", i.e., family reunification, "mail-order spouses", etc., or as illegal aliens. The vast majority... lack job and linguistic skills and do not join the tax-paying labor force in any significant numbers, but rather work in the underground economy or enlist in the welfare rolls.

More serious than even the economic cost to the host societies is "the extensive and ongoing radicalization of the burgeoning Muslim populations" of the EU. However, Alexiev notes, aside from Britain, "most European governments... seemingly as a matter of principal, avoid collecting or publishing most relevant data of an ethnic or religious character" and "have avoided openly debating this issue, except for rhetorical flourishes about the need to integrate the Muslim minority" while "relatively little attention has been paid to the likelihood that... Muslim communities, if radicalized and unintegrated, could have a dramatic impact on political stability in Western Europe long before 'Islamization' takes place". In other words, radical Islam does not have to outnumber us in order to cause massive disruption of Western civilization. As Alexiev bluntly states:

Major demographic shifts are, of course, nothing new in history. Nor is the replacement of one dominant culture with another on account of a new demographic balance necessarily a cause for concern per se. Unless, of course, that new culture is dominated by the hateful, obscurantist and inherently violent Islamist creed that does not intend to coexist peacefully with others.

Please read it all. It is stark and horrifying, and it is appalling that the alleged leaders of the West still refuse to confront this reality.

Silencing the People

IT IS axiomatic that freedom of expression is the foundation of human freedom and progress. When people are not allowed to express themselves freely, there can be no debate or inquiry. It is only due to free debate and inquiry that humanity has progressed from the Dark Age to the Digital Age. This is why the first act of every would-be tyrant is to take control of the marketplace of ideas. - Caroline Glick, The Jerusalem Post

It has recently been reported that Susan Winter, a politician (Stadträtin) in Graz, Austria has been indicted for "Incitement and Degradation of Religious Symbols". If found guilty, she faces up to two years in an Austrian jail! Why? Because she had the temerity to speak her mind, she had the chutzpah to speak the truth as she saw the truth to be. After all, she believed, rightly in my opinion, that she lived in a European country which upheld the right of free speech. Not so, it seems.

She stated that the prophet Muhammad was a Kinderschänder, child molester, or paedophile. She also stated that Muhammad was a warlord. There were videos of her speech on YouTube, and even on my own website, but they all appear to have been removed! (God knows who removed them!)

That a person in Europe is now no longer able to express himself/herself freely, and with impunity, augers badly for our future here in Europe, for however repugnant a person’s ideas are, that person should be allowed to express them freely. As Caroline Glick stated (above): "It is axiomatic that freedom of expression is the foundation of human freedom and progress."

One thing that differentiates the world of the West with the Muslim world is this: Until now, we Westerners were allowed to express ourselves freely, without fear of reprisals from the law. The same cannot be said about people’s rights in Muslim nations. Is it, then, any wonder that the West has moved from the Dark Ages to the Digital Age, whereas the Muslim world has not? Whatever vestiges of the Digital Age the Muslim world enjoys can be attributed directly to the progress made by Westerners. For without Western civilization, Muslims would still be riding around on their camels, and would be living in tents.

One must therefore ask oneself one simple, but one very important, question: Is it the intention of European politicians to take western Europe back to the Dark Ages? Or are they just too yellow to speak up for Judeo-Christian civilization, the civilization which has brought the West so much in terms of human progress and development?

Do these weak, wimpish, excuses for politicians not realize that this wonderful civilization is not theirs to give away? Don’t they realize that we are merely custodians of this civilization?

Another recent example of the cowardliness of Western politicians is in their recent reaction to Geert Wilders’ wonderful, short film, Fitna. In that short little video, he managed to encapsulate all the dangers that Islam – yes Islam, not Islamism – poses to the till yet free, Western world.

Yet what has he got for his labours in return? Nothing but a blasting! European politicians, almost to a man, have denigrated this courageous Dutch politician for telling the people what they don’t want to know, but need to know if they are to be able to continue living in liberty.

Balkenende, the prime minister of the Netherlands, is probably the example par excellence of a politician without gonads. Before the film’s release, he had been running around like a headless chicken, trying to minimize the expected fall-out from the release of the excellent film.

If the Dutch government had been able, legally, to silence the brave and courageous Geert Wilders, then there is absolutely no doubt that it would have done so.

So where is all this leading to? Well, the answer to this simple question is quite simple: To no good place!

First of all, it should be stated that it is no good talking the talk without walking the walk. Western politicians are very adept at talking up the benefits of democracy and freedom. But to all but the blindest among us, it should be obvious that they are also adept at taking people’s liberty and democracy away from them! They are running scared; and they are hell-bent on avoiding conflict with an enemy – Islam – which is implacable. But there is a word in most languages for this. In English, it is called appeasement. In French, it is called apaisement, in German, Beschwichtigung. Whichever word you use in your language, it amounts to the same thing: Weakness!

It should be obvious to all that the West has not come to this wonderful place without struggle and strife. In each and every age, we will find our enemies and detractors. In the twentieth century, people had to live with the dangers of Nazism, for Hitler was the enemy of the day. But people back then had a backbone, and they had principle, too. And they were willing to fight for those principles; indeed, they were willing to die for them. They were most unlike the current bunch of excuses for statesmen we have leading us today! Think of them: Brown, Verhagen, Balkenende, Bush, ex-prime minister Blair. The list is endless. They are all wimps; they are all cowards, they are all unworthy of leading the free world.

We should all get one thing straight: Islam is not in the West to be equal to any other faith; rather, it is here to become dominant. Muslims will not rest until the laws of the land are supplanted by the laws of the Qur’an, by the so-called Sahri’ah laws that their god – Allah – is supposed to have sent down to them.

Shari’ah law is anathema to all the West stands for. It tolerates no equality between the sexes. It tolerates no rights for homosexuals. It tolerates no diversity of belief; and it certainly doesn’t tolerate disbelief. If Shari’ah gets the upper hands, we shall all be praying in the direction of Makkah, we shall all be Muslims then.

It is time for Westerners to re-assert their commitment to Judeo-Christian culture, to Judeo-Christian civilization, to liberty, democracy and all that our wonderful, superior civilization has given us. It is also high time for the people to stand up and tell their leaders that we will not be silenced.

As Geert Wilders said, the hour is late. There is little time to lose. If we lose this battle, we shall surely be taken back to a ‘New Dark Age’. No kidding!

©Mark Alexander

All Rights Reserved

Cultural Success and the Fate of the World

I just got this in an email and thought it was very interesting, and ultimately pertinent to what we're doing here on the IBA. I don't know who wrote this first part, but the second part is by the Science Editor, Roger Highfield. -CW

WE GENERALLY TEND to emphasize the role of government policies and institutions and de-emphasize the role of culture in the success or failure of societies, and this is why runaway immigration that results in massive groups of immigrants than can never be assimilated in the general culture (such as in France, for example) are such a threat. They transform societies into the culture of the immigrants in the areas where it really counts, into the kind of societies those immigrants were risking their lives to get away from.

The UK and in the United States are particularly under threat, because (despite flaws) one of our greatest cultural "assets," if you will, is the general context of fairness, cooperation and the rule of law.

It's worth noting that every single English-speaking country without exception — America, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, etc. — is by any measure broadly successful. Every single Islamic, Arabic-speaking country, for example, is largely unsuccessful (if you ignore oil wealth, which — like winning the lottery — doesn't come from a culture that leads to success, but blind luck).

I would assert that this horribly stark dichotomy has nothing to do with colonialism or exploitation or anything of the kind. It has everything to do with the everyday functioning of individuals, which is based on the core assumptions of individuals about their own role in society.

This idea can be oversimplified thus: English-speaking cultures in general, and the United States in particular, believe both in the "win-win" scenario — situations that benefit both of us are possible — and in the idea of making personal sacrifices for the good of society.

Islamic, Arabic-speaking countries (as well as Russia and others) tend to NOT believe in the "win-win" scenario, but instead in the idea that every transaction or interaction has a winner and a loser, and that making personal sacrifices for the good of society means you're the loser and other people are the winners.

This is precisely why Iraq is ungovernable.

We went in there with the assumption that by establishing a democracy, good society would follow. It turns out that the "zero sum game" assumption of Iraqi (and Islamic and Arabic-speaking) culture won't allow democracy or any of the benefits that come from democracy. Iraqis will refuse to sacrifice anything for their clan, will refuse to allow their clan to sacrifice anything for their larger religious group, refuse to allow their larger religious group to sacrifice anything for the nation. If they win, I lose. Therefore, I must win at the expense of others. Americans are confused and frustrated by the failure of progress in Iraq, but the reason is that, broadly speaking, Iraqis themselves spend as much time working toward the failure of other Iraqis as they do on the success of their own groups and selves. That's the prevailing attitude of that culture.


Back to immigration: In the United States, we're allowing the rapid, unprecedented formation of two societies: 1) the melting pot, where immigrants from 210 countries come in and culturally assimilate; and 2) the Latino society, where immigrants assimilate, but into a separate, alienated Spanish-speaking, Spanish-culture melting pot (Mexican-dominated, but international). Having two cultures and two languages (like Canada) is problematic enough. The bigger problem is the growth and flourishing of the Spanish-language culture's zero sum, if-you-win-I-lose view of the self vis-a-vis society, which brings us all down.

This will not only erode one of the best things about our Anglo-Saxon tradition, but it will result in a society that functions more like Iraq and less like New England.

This cultural shift will hurt not only melting-pot Americans, but Latino-Americans, too, because America will lose many of the cultural attributes they risked their lives to enjoy.

Anyway, sorry for the ramble. It was sparked by this report:



British sense of fair play proven by science
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor

The British sense of fair play has been scientifically proven by experiments held in 16 cities which show that, by comparison, the Russians and Greeks thirst for revenge.

The idealised games held around the world have shed new light on the way in which people co-operate for the common good — and what happens when they don't.

The research published today in the journal Science shows that taking revenge is more common in relatively corrupt and undemocratic traditional societies based on authoritarian and parochial social institutions, where citizens think it is acceptable to dodge taxes or flout laws because criminal acts frequently go unpunished.

The international study looked at the extent to which some people will sacrifice personal gain to benefit the wider public, while 'freeloaders' try to take advantage of their generosity.

In earlier work, scientists devised a financial game in which participants had to decide whether to commit their resources — tokens — to a common pot or hold back and reap the benefits of the others' community spirit.

Without a financial punishment for those who did not make public-spirited investments, but continued to exploit the generous nature of others, co-operation rapidly foundered.

Based on this game, Prof Simon Gaechter and Dr Benedikt Herrmann at The University of Nottingham, and Dr Christian Thoni at the University of St Gallen, Switzerland, studied the behaviour of people in 16 cities around the world, from Boston and Bonn to Riyadh, Minsk, Nottingham, Seoul and others.

Prof Gaechter says: "To our knowledge this is the largest cross-cultural study of experimental games that has been carried out in the developed world."

Levels of co-operation were remarkably similar across all 16 cities, they report.

However, against the predictions of economists, behaviour changed dramatically when everyone's contributions were revealed — and players were given the ability to punish other player by taking tokens away.

As previous studies have shown, players were willing to part with a token of their own in order to punish the low investors or the freeloaders who had exploited others.

But striking national differences then arose when freeloaders were punished for putting their own interests ahead of the common good.

In countries such as the US, Switzerland and the UK, the freeloaders accepted their punishment, became much more co-operative and the earnings in the game increased over time.

However, in countries such as Greece and Russia, the freeloaders sought retribution - exerting revenge on those who had punished them — even the model citizens who had paid their way. Co-operation for the common good then plummeted as a result.

In societies where the modern ethic of co-operation with strangers is less familiar and the rule of law is perceived to be weak, revenge is more common and co-operation suffers, comments Dr Herrmann.

What is fascinating about the behaviour in the games is that they parallel measures of norms of civic co-operation and rule of law made by social scientists, says Dr Herrmann. These norms cover general attitudes to the law, for example whether or not citizens think it is acceptable to dodge taxes or flout laws.

In societies where this behaviour is widespread and the rule of law is perceived to be ineffective — that is, if criminal acts frequently go unpunished - anti-social "revenge" punishment thrives.

"In societies where public co-operation is ingrained and people trust their law enforcement institutions, revenge is generally shunned," he says. "But in societies where the modern ethic of co-operation with unrelated strangers is less familiar and the rule of law is weak, revenge is more common."

Economists are keen to understand the decision-making processes behind co-operation, as working together for the common good is crucial for progress in any society - not least for effectively addressing big issues such as recycling and tackling climate change.

The issue of how to make the public share responsibility for common problems such as climate change was most vividly illustrated by Prof Garrett Hardin, of the University of California, Santa Barbara, in his influential 1968 paper 'The tragedy of the commons'.

He used the example of a public pasture. Each herdsman will add one cow after the other to a common field, because the benefit of an additional cow goes exclusively to the herdsman, but the cost of overgrazing is shared by all and the pasture will end up ruined.

"The rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another.... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. "

Dr Hermann says: "There are numerous examples in everyday life of situations where co-operation is the best option but there are incentives to take a free ride, such as recycling, neighbourhood watch, voting, maintaining the local environment, tackling climate change, and so on. We need to understand why people behave in this way because co-operation is very strongly inhibited in the presence of anti-social punishment."

In a commentary in the journal Science, Prof Herbert Gintis of the Santa Fe Institute, New Mexico, confirms how: "Anti-social punishment was rare in the most democratic societies and very common otherwise.

"Using the World Democracy Audit evaluation of countries' performance in political rights, civil liberties, press freedom and corruption, the top six performers among the countries studied were also in the lowest seven for anti-social punishment. These were the USA, UK, Germany, Denmark, Australia and Switzerland."

He adds: "Their results suggest that the success of democratic market societies may depend critically upon moral virtues as well as material interests, so the depiction of civil society as the sphere of 'naked self-interest' is radically incorrect."

The Indonesian summit asking for a Global Caliphate and Spain

I have written a long post about the Indonesian summit, held by 100.000 Hibz ut-Tahrir supporters and the consequences it could bring for the West and specifically for Spain.

There are several things that worry me really: the secret recruitment, the selection of the recruits between educated middle-class and their support of terrorism. Yes, I know that they say they are not violent, but they support terrorism both in Palestine and in Iraq, saying it's the Jihad.

Of course, they reject Western democracy, but support a democracy with religious values, although they support the Caliphate. They also pretend as a final goal, the conversion of all the world to Islam.

The Disbanded People

60 construction workers building the Communist showpiece Stalin-Allee, the "first socialist avenue in Germany" in East Berlin went on strike on 16 June 1953, to demand a reduction in recent work-quota increases. They called for a general strike the next day. By dawn of June 17, 100,000 protesters had gathered with more arriving throughout the morning. More protests were held all over the GDR.

The initial pleas of the protesters for the reinstatement of the previous lower work quotas turned into political demands. SED functionaries took to the streets and began arguing with small groups of protesters. Eventually, the workers demanded the resignation of the East German government. The government turned to their Soviet brethren for military support.

At noon, the Volkspolizei (East Germany's "people's police") had trapped many of the demonstrators in an open square. When dozens of T-34 Soviet tanks appeared, the uprising started to lose its clout and although there were no major assaults on the military, a massacre followed. It is still unclear how many people died during the uprising and by the death sentences which followed. The official number of victims is 55. After the evaluation of documents accessible since reunification, the number of victims appears to be at least 125, whereas higher estimates put the number of dead at 267.

20,000 people were imprisoned as felons, three were decapitated later. Summarily executed were: Kurt Arndt, Eisleben; Ernst Markgraf, Stralsund; Heinz Brandt, Rostock; Walter Schädlich, Leipzig; Eberhard von Canerin, Geithain; Axel Schäfer, Erfurt; Alfred Dartsch, Magdeburg; Günter Schwarzer, Gotha; Alfred Diener, Jena; Heinz Sonntag, Leipzig; Willy Göttling, Berlin; Hermann Stahl, Eisleben; Hartmann, Delitzsch; Herbert Strauch, Magdeburg; Peter Heider, Magdeburg; Hans Wojkowski, Stralsund; Vera Knoblauch, Rostock; Walter Krüger, Eisleben and three unknown Volkspolizisten. Willy Göttling was from West Berlin. He was sentenced to death and shot because of the "brigand-like excesses against the ruling power and the people". His body was never released.

In memory of the 1953 East German rebellion, West Germany established June 17 as a national holiday. Upon reunification in October 1990, the "Day of German Unity" was moved to October 3, the date of the formal reunification, thus removing it firmly from its roots.

Just in time for the 54th memorial of July 17, 1953, yesterday and after the merger with a smaller West German sister party, Die Linke, the successor of the Communist party responsible for the bloodshed on June 17, 1953, has become the third biggest party in Germany following CDU/CSU and SPD.

Read it all at Roncesvalles.

Turkey: "no incursion into Iraq"

As epaminondas has posted before, Turkish Army has entered Iraq -although later they have denied it- allegedly to pursue PKK terrorists.

The problem that this poses to US -and to West in general- is that both Turkish and Kurds are important US allies. Turkey is facing a very unstable situation specially as a result of the tension between laicists-kemalists and islamists -now in Government-. Kurds are an important US-ally in Iraq and an important enemy for Iranian mullahs, but in an important number they are also supporters of PKK, an organisation considered by US as a terrorist one.

This moves comes as Sarkozy has declared that he will not oppose to EU-Turkey talks about Turkish integration in EU -after his rejectment during all the electoral campaign, which has caused the natural criticism- and when Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I wants Turkish Muslims to have the same rights the Muslims have both in Europe and in Turkey.

Etiquetas de del.icio.us: Turkey, PKK, terrorism, Kurdistan, Iraqi Kurdistan, USA, Iran

Etiquetas de Technorati: Turkey, PKK, terrorism, Kurdistan, Iraqi Kurdistan, USA, Iran

One can not live crooked and think straight! (Hilmar von Campe)

I first met Hilmar von Campe last October – as one does in the Internet.

Different from all other online-encounters was, however, the fact that he was graceful enough to write me an email to thank me for my brief appreciative remarks about him and his work. (I have still no idea how he found them.) We have become friends, are talking on the phone occasionally and I intend to meet him and his wife should circumstances permit it.

This is about my experience with his latest book "How Was it Possible?".

"How Was it Possible?" is introduced as an autobiography. That it is, but it is much more. A passionate polemic pamphlet, a compelling and demanding ethical codex, an authoritative source on the German past with lots of historical information from a contemporary witness, and a declaration of appreciation and gratitude for the country that has become his home, America.

Born in the German province of Westphalia in 1925 to an aristocratic family (the father was a high-ranking civil servant), von Campe offers a, to me, unique Christian perspective on the rise and fall of Nazi Germany. His account as both, witness and participant of the horrible outcome of self deception and godlessness in Germany is invaluable. As a Hitler Youth, then as a soldier, he saw the world plunged into war and his country and family destroyed. One of his brothers fell in the war, his father was murdered in a Russian concentration camp. When it was all over, he knew he had nothing to blame but himself and all the many Germans who had looked the other way.

After the war Hilmar von Campe had to come to terms with the fact of the Holocaust but, different from other Germans, he met his moral responsibility head-on, went through a profound ethical change and embarked on a travel of restitution for the crimes of his nation and of reconciliation with the victims. He was received twice by the then executive director of the Holocaust Memorial Center in Washington, Dr. David Weinstein, and apologized to him for the suffering Germany had inflicted on the Jewish people. He told him, "that the crimes of the Nazis were only possible because of the moral cowardice of so many of us non-Nazis."

An honest, remarkable, and remarkably brave, statement indeed!

The most painful part of defining National Socialism was recognizing my own moral responsibility for the Nazi disaster and their crimes against humanity, which boiled down to the accepting the truth that "as I am so is my nation" – in other words, if every German had been like me, it was no wonder that the nation became the tool of gangsters.

Like here, Hilmar von Campe reminds his readers in no uncertain terms throughout his book that the still undecided battle between good and evil is fought with the weapons of truth and lie. He talks about the godless cult of relativism, which is part of the latter, and that every human being will have to decide on which side he or she wants to stand at this historical point in time. There is no cowardly opting out. In his book he sends a warning to every American – to every human – not to look the other way and follow the road of appeasement to evil as millions of Germans did, but stand up for God's truth. One cannot be a bystander and a Christian at the same time, he says.

Von Campe is in an almost unique position to point out the links between Nazi ideology and Islamic hatred, and he tells us clearly and precisely how things are, how Islam follows in the steps of the "Third Reich", how the "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem" and rabid Jew-hater was sponsored by the Nazis, how his relative and ideological foster child Yasser Arafat was recruited and trained by Russia and how the Nazi's persecution of Jews has been taken to new levels by radical Islam and thus become a threat not just to the Jewish people but of the entire free world.

Hilmar von Campe, who had left Germany in the Fifties, spent a long time in various Latin America countries. His experiences have been far outside the "standard", like his kidnapping in Bolivia by mine workers, his living in an Argentine factory in Avellaneda dominated by Peronist workers, his interactions with the leaders of the Communist Dockworkers Union in Rio de Janeiro or his chairmanship of the Mexican-American Chamber of Commerce Subcommittee on Foreign Investments. He owned a factory in Mexico and is now president of an Ex- and Import business in the United States. He is married to Dina from Peru. They have two children, Stefan and Sabrina and it is a delight to read how the von Campe family didn't end up as a "multikulti" hotchpotch, but as four tri-lingual individuals who learned to evaluate and respect different cultures. As Hilmar von Campe puts it: "Other nations and what makes them tick has been part of our family as long as our family has existed, and we have been better off for having friends in many parts of the world."

Hilmar von Campe's biography and thinking bears witness to the fact that secular ideologies are no answer to totalitarian and inhuman threats now, as they haven't been an answer seventy years ago, but to me, personally, it doesn't end here.

"How Was it Possible?" is, among the many other things it is, an priceless source for Americans who are interested in truly authentic insight of the German soul beyond "panzer ace" admiration and German self-hatred at two different sides of the same scale. Hilmar von Campe's ethical and political analysis is simple (but far from simplistic), revealing, astounding and thought-provoking at the same time. At a time when a phoney pacifism has all of Germany in its grip and more and more people are surrendering unconditionally to the forces that threaten our culture under the bigoted pretense that our Nazi past means a special "responsibility" not to fight anymore and not even, or rather specifically not, against evil ("Who are we Germans to judge others… we, with OUR past...") I, as a German, appreciate in particular that he has the rare courage to draw the inevitable parallels between Nazi Germany and the recent Muslim threat, a parallel hardly any German is willing to draw. It is, so I think, no mere chance that so many ex-Nazi followers (like Nobel-laureated former SS-man Günther Grass, to mention just one notable example), their children and grandchildren, are falling over their own feet in anticipating obedience, relativist reasoning and dhimmitude* and that their interpretation of the German past and what it should imply is leading to the opposite position of that of a Hilmar von Campe, who is a staunch ally of Israel. Which is, to me, the hallmark of honest German "Vergangenheitsbewältigung".

If that it simplistic, so be it, but Hilmar von Campe's sincere, truthful and straightforward reckoning with the past is a previously unknown comfort to this German's heart.

Hilmar von Campe shows us Germans a way out of that endless spiral of hypocrisy and self-hatred. Will we take it? I doubt it.

-----------------

For the original article go ro Roncesvalles.

US Democratic Party--Having It Both Ways

Go ahead and trace the public statements of leading members of the political party that controls the US Congress. Notice how easy it is for them to change directions when it is politically convenient. Millions will die as a result of their actions--if they are successful. But they are politicians first and foremost. They must go where the winds, the financial contributions, and the lowest common denominator voter takes them.