Hostility Towards Germans Part III:
White Guilt and Islamic Chauvinism
by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage
Translated by J M Damon
translation of a German blog posted at <http://korrektheiten.com/2011/08/06/deutschenfeindlichkeit-teil-3-und-schluss-white-guilt-und-islamischer-chauvinismus/>
[Following is Part III of my lecture “Hostility
Towards the Germans – Taking Stock” which was
presented to the Institut für Staatspolitik
(Institute for State Policy) as part of the 18th
Berlin Colloquium on 16 July 2011.]
of the Paradign of anti German Hostility to the Entire
As we have seen, hostility toward Germany and
Germans exists on three levels.
On the lowest (first) level, it is the kind of
hostility or antagonism that is directed toward a
specific Volk or people (in our case the Germans.)
On this level we are dealing with simple resentments
dating to former antagonisms (such as those with the
Poles, English and Jews.)
On a higher (second) level, anti German hostility is
the expression of a kind of globalistic ideology.
Germany was historically assumed to be the prinipal
antagonist (the “quintessential evil”), and
Germany could again be seen this way.
These antagonisms have led to hostility on an even
more abstract (third) level.
The antagonism against the German people is part of
an ideological syndrome that is directed against the
existence of national groups per se, particularly
At present, anti German ideology has been
universalized to a White Guilt Paradigm. According
to the White Guilt Paradigm, white peoples are
burdened with guilt because of their evil nature.
The paradigm includes the expansion of anti German
ideology to all the countries of the West, and their
“guilt” takes diverse forms including
colonialism, the extermination of American Indians
(along with other indigenous peoples) and even
White people are blamed for African slavery despite
the fact that it was a brief interlude in Western
culture and is furthermore an institution blessed by
Allah, in keeping with Islamic law. It is still
unofficially practiced in many Islamic countries and
would still be practiced in Africa if the West had
not abolished it. According to the White Guilt
Paradigm, the Western nations must pay for their
guilt by surrendering their lands to invasion by
nonwhite peoples from all over the world. This
“politically correct” paradigm has elevated
self-destruction to an official virtue and moral
imperative in nearly all Western countries.
This self-mandated genocide in the West involves
more than merely permitting mass in-migration, since
Globalism aims to abolish more than just national
groups. In keeping with its Enlightenment genesis,
and in the name of the Utopia of Self-Created Man,
it takes aim at all pre-existing ties.
Included among these ties are the family and all
gender-specific differentiations. In this assault on
Western institutions, Globalism utilizes catchwords
such as “gender mainstreaming” and “patchwork
families,” and it advocates homosexuality,
hedonistic sexual morals, abortion; etc.
In general, Globalism opposes the idea that man can
be more than an atomized individual, and it rejects
the possibility that man can be part of a
transcendent entirety, an integral part of a natural
progression of generations. Apparently we cannot
entirely banish the idea of responsibility for those
born after us – apparently it is born in us.
However, globalistic utopianism has succeeded in
dislodging it from its embedment in an actual chain
of generations and transferred it to a totally
abstract level. This was all the easier because
responsibility for an abstract “Mankind” or
“Creation” is ideally suited to relieve the
individual of real responsibility for his own life
as well as the lives of his children.
The individual thus “liberated” pays for his
“liberation” with political support for more or
less totalitarian projects for the rapture of all
Needless to say, Globalism seeks to divest religion
(especially Christianity) of its authenticity, as
official Christians with state go about proclaiming
that “all religions strive for the same goal”.
This idea is highly suspect to the followers of
“all religions” except Christianity, but it
irritates Westerners no more than the traditional
and obvious objection: if all religions strive for
the same thing, why are there so many different
religions? The Christian religion’s claim to
truth, whose central articles of faith include the
belief that Man alone cannot redeem himself,
disrupts realization of the Enlightenment Utopia.
For this reason, very little traditional religious
folklore has to survive.
It is necessary for the Globalists to anchor this
ideological syndrome in more than just our heads,
however. If that were all that is required, it could
easily be displaced by argumentation. The syndrome
is also anchored structurally in an elite
international network whose followers are obligated
to support this ideological paradigm. In addition,
it is included in countless varied state and
nongovernmental institutions. The force that is
undermining the will and capacity for self-assertion
among European peoples is not just ideology itself,
but rather a complex structure that builds on this
ideology and is dedicated to the destruction of our
The structures of family, Volk and religion have
traditionally provided solidarity in the Western
societies, but they are now being ideologically
dismantled. Western societies are now atomized while
confronted with massive immigration by Muslims,
whose society is not infected with self-destructive
It is well understood that Islam is not simply a
religion but rather a social ideology and social
order as well. It is a social order that is
programmed to be self-stabilizing. Islam stresses
everything that holds human society together. The
fragile and complex balance of centrifugal and
centripetal forces, freedoms and restrictions,
rights and duties that has always characterized
Christian societies is foreign to Islam. Today this
balance has been disrupted in the West by
centrifugal and emancipating forces that have gained
the upper hand.
The distinction between “We” and “You,”
between believers and nonbelievers, is central to
the religion of Islam. This distinction is not a
co-incidental admixture from the Middle Ages that
can arbitrarily be deleted from their religion.
Rather, it is inherent in their images of God and
If Man is not made in the image of God, as
Christians and Jews postulate, but is instead pure
invention and property, in fact a slave of his
Creator, then total submission to Allah
(“Islam”) is the only proper relationship.
Thus Muslims are a priori better people than
non-Muslims, since non-Muslims resist Allah, who is
affronted by their very existence.
In support of such intolerance the Koran does not
spare tirades of hatred against “nonbelievers”
whose inferiority and depravity comprise a basic
assumption of Islam. Thus the Law of Enmity must
remain in effect between Muslims and non-Muslims
until the worldwide triumph of Islam.
Under such assumptions, an ethos of self-criticism
The Koran opposes the biblical admonition “Judge
not, lest you be also judged” with “We are the
best society that ever existed among men, we strive
for the good and forbid the evil, and we believe in
Allah.” One’s shirt of course can fit more
snugly than one’s coat, and so a Turk for example
can still favor the welfare of his own people over
that of the Arabs (not to mention the Kurds.)
The fundamental assertion that Mankind is to be seen
through the glasses of a We-You Relationship also
presents the worldview of less religious Muslims. In
countries such as Turkey it inspires ethnic
chauvinism as well.
The fact that Muslim peoples can be enemies of one
another does not interfere with their forming a We
Group in opposition to nonbelievers.
Muslim solidarity against nonbelievers is in fact
the central social norm of Islam.
From this arises the impossibility for Muslims of
forming an attachment to a non-Muslim nation, unless
it is restricted to formal legalities such as
obtaining citizenship. This further illustrates the
impossibility of Muslims forming attachments to
non-Muslim groups. In their view, placing a higher
value on solidarity with a non Muslim nation than
solidarity among Muslims would be so immoral that it
would be an outright impossibility.
Whether a society is “Muslim” or not depends on
the political leadership.
For example, if Muslims occupied positions of
leadership, they could regard Germany as a Muslim
country. The German Volk, to whom they could then be
loyal, would, in their view, consist of Muslims like
themselves. The remainder of the formerly German
Volk would then be mere Dhimmis, an ethnic and
religious minority that they would tolerate and no
longer consider “German.”
These traits endow Islam with an enormous collective
ability to successfully put its programs through,
especially against the degenerate West. It goes
without saying that a society whose entire world
image is built on We–You differentiation is
certain to have the advantage in confrontations with
a society that is unaware of such a distinction, and
would even consider it immoral.
Islam’s contempt for nonbelievers, which is an
integral part of their worldview, turns to hate when
the nonbelievers are predominant.
Such hatred at present is not directed specifically
at Germans in particular – in general, Germans are
more popular in the Islamic world than other Western
peoples. Instead, it is directed against whatever
society happens to be in the majority, which in
Germany happens to be the “Scheiß-Deutschen”
At any rate a Muslim takeover is possible only
because of the efforts of a cartel of elite
international functionaries who have adopted and
internalized a globalistic utopia. In the final
analysis, this cartel constitutes the revolutionary
party of the European Civil War that not only allows
this process to occur, but is actively promoting it.
In doing this, it is harnessing to its cart the
special interests of the political Left along with
minorities of every description. The minorities are
serving it very well.