Thilo Sarrazin: Germany’s Voice of Reason?

Thilo Sarrazin has already caused controversy in his native Germany with the publication of his book ‘Germany abolishes Itself’, and his latest book - Europa braucht den Euro nicht ('Europe doesn’t need the Euro') - appears set to ruffle yet more feathers, for in this he calls for Germany to leave the Euro and reintroduce the Deutschmark. Moreover, he thinks that the Euro itself was a flawed concept. Quite rightly, he also calls for an end to Germans’ obsessive soul-searching over Auschwitz and the Holocaust; those responsible for these crimes are long dead, and Germans today have no reason to feel guilt for these atrocities which have cast a pall over their nation. It is this, to a considerable extent argues Sarrazin, that has driven Germany’s quest for European economic and political union, but this has been misguided and should end. Germany has no moral obligation to carry the rest of Europe upon its shoulders.  

Owing to Sarrazin’s position as a senior and respected mainstream political figure, he has been able to make politically incorrect yet factually objective statements about Islam, mass immigration and the EU, which others may have been afraid to make for fear of damaging their careers and attracting a degree of official opprobrium. Unfortunately, Sarrazin’s political home – the SPD – generally finds his views on these themes unpalatable, and he has already been described as 'nationalist and reactionary', but the Germans find themselves in a lucky position to possess such a figure, for in Britain we do not have any politician of his stature willing to acknowledge or to speak the truth on these matters.  

At a time when the national contradictions within the Eurozone are beginning to threaten the long-term viability of the currency, two major responses have emerged: one being a call for tighter fiscal and political integration versus the demand for the exit of a number of states from the Eurozone presaging its potential dissolution. As in the former Soviet Union where differences in regional economic development, culture and national sentiment eventually manifested themselves in the fragmentation of the state, it would seem that the days of the EU could be numbered as the same centrifugal forces come into play. The terminal crisis of the USSR was precipitated by the collapse of its economic model, and a similar crisis could now be underway for the EU as its existing economic and political structures prove maladapted to the welfare of the continent’s different peoples and the functioning of its distinctive economies.  

The fall of the Soviet Union was confirmed when Gorbachev’s reformism precipitated a backlash from hardliners within the CPSU who launched an attempted coup in August 1991. It was Boris Yeltsin’s decisive action as President of the RSFSR, drawing upon a growing undercurrent of democratic Russian nationalism that led to the coup’s defeat, and at the end of the year to the dissolution of the USSR itself with the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States. Defenders of the EU and its tightly intertwined projects for economic and political union appear, as was the case with the Soviet hardliners, determined to use almost any means to preserve their cherished political dream. Much of their legitimating discourse is reliant upon invoking the demons of the continent’s past and claims that opposition to the EU project threatens a “return to the extremism of the 1930s”.  This is a disingenuous deeply nasty slur upon the integrity of those of an anti-globalist democratic nationalist disposition in all European nations, who crave not the jackboot, as the proponents of the EU project claim, but national self-determination and its attendant values of genuine freedom, democracy and liberty. 

The new anti-globalism growing across the constituent nations of the EU today shares more in common with the late- and post-Soviet nationalisms of peoples wishing to break free from the shackles of an anti-democratic supranational state, than with the ugly authoritarian and inhuman fascistic perversions of nationalist sentiment of the 1930s. Sarrazin is but one figure, albeit a highly prominent one, willing to give voice to this new mood today. Globalisation and globalism have reached their apogee, and from hereon, the future will belong to the proponents of a new popular, progressive and democratic anti-globalism. Let all nations flourish in a state of amity and concord, and a celebration of global cultural pluralism replace the corrosive anti-European concept of multiculturalism.  

Thilo Sarrazin

Mayoral Elections May 2012

Understandably, when it comes to the forthcoming mayoral elections the gaze of the media has thus far largely been directed towards London, the place where the concept of a directly elected mayor was put to the test for the first time in 2000. It is and will be a contest dominated by the personalities of Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone, the only men to have held the office to date. Already it has proven to be an exceptionally bad tempered race, with personal animosity boiling over into the well-publicised “fucking liar” incident in which Johnson lost his rag with Livingstone during a live radio debate. Although Johnson is a rich man, the subsequent publication of his personal earnings and tax details for the past three years, when compared to Livingstone’s, shows that he has paid his way whereas Livingstone, thanks to a little creative accounting, most certainly has not. Johnson’s fury therefore possessed some justification.

Livingstone was a trailblazer of divisive multiculturalist identity politics, helping to create an ethnically and culturally fragmented capital that whilst in our country is largely no longer of it; a city defined by geography rather than by people and community. Having nurtured the emergence of distinctive self-conscious ethnic blocs, it is to them that he now largely appeals, championing ‘minorities’ over the indigenous population. Andrew Gilligan and others have noted Livingstone’s poisonous embrace of Islamists in recent years, as well as a succession of remarks that indicate an apparent antipathy towards Jews. Having witnessed Galloway’s successful mobilisation of the Muslim bloc vote in Bradford West, it is a certainty that Livingstone will tap into this same demographic in London, appealing to the electors of Tower Hamlets and other such areas, using the Islamic Forum of Europe to help deliver the “community” votes that he requires. Galloway’s victory was to a considerable extent founded upon the willingness of Muslims to vote and the apathy of the non-Muslim indigenous population. Given that neither Johnson nor Livingstone enjoys a commanding lead in the opinion polls, Livingstone’s ability to tap into the growing Muslim bloc vote could provide him with the advantage that he requires to edge ahead of Johnson. This is the ugly political reality that characterises our capital today.

For all of the metropolitan media’s obsession with London, life and politics do exist outside of the capital, and mayoral elections also will be taking place elsewhere on 3 May, notably in Liverpool and Salford. Doncaster, which produced something of a surprise in its mayoral election of 2009 by returning the English Democrat Peter Davies (quite why a man would praise the Taliban for their “family values” is puzzling), will be holding a referendum over whether it should retain or abolish the office of elected mayor. With none of the mainstream political parties igniting voter enthusiasm, the time would seem to be ripe for other parties to make a breakthrough, so perhaps either of these elections might produce a surprise result. However, the personality and background of each of the candidates is as likely to be just as influential as any party label.

In Liverpool a mayoral debate will take place on Thursday 19 April, with the opportunity being open for all candidates to contribute. However, given their antipathy towards free speech and democracy, the self-styled “Liverpool Antifascists”  have stated that their supporters are planning to hold a demonstration outside of the debate’s venue – Mountford Hall – because they claim that “three fascist candidates” will be present, with one from each of the following parties: “the British National Party, English Democrats and National Front.” The recent demise of the BNP has resulted in groups and campaigns describing themselves as “antifascist” seeking to find new targets for their activities so as to justify their ongoing existence, and it is thus unfortunate for the English Democrats that they are but the latest to be singled out for stigmatisation by Liverpool Antifascists, Hope Not Hate and UAF.

Contemporary politics, in England in particular, has grown stale and offers prospective voters no real choice. This fact is reflected in the dismal approval ratings of the leaders of the main political parties and low voter turnout. Clearly, there is room for a new party that seeks to provide a credible and moderate nationalist programme aimed at improving the lot of our citizenry as a whole, and our people in particular. Although such a party does not yet exist, a decision has been taken to bring it into existence, and work is currently underway with respect to its organisation, structure, constitution and policy. A team is being brought into being and an announcement regarding its launch will be made within the next couple of months. The next set of local and mayoral elections therefore, should be rather more interesting than those scheduled for this May.

Who should determine the Future of Libya?

This evening, the panellists on Radio 4's 'The Moral Maze' debated the pros and cons and rights and wrongs of potential military intervention in Libya. Much of the debate thus centred upon a cluster of issues connected to state sovereignty, international law, Just War Theory and human rights. Ultimately, it was a debate that revolved around the central question of 'who should determine the future of Libya?'

For me, there can only be one answer to this question: the Libyan people themselves. Libyan sovereignty is under contention, with Gaddafi attempting to retain the state as his personal domain, whilst a popular uprising seeks to wrest control from him in the name of the Libyan people. Clearly, for a democratic nationalist the right to determine the future lies with the latter, not with a despot and his clique. What is equally clear however is that it is up to the Libyan people to determine that outcome and to establish their own post-Gaddafi government; it is not the business of the UN, NATO, the Gulf Co-operation Council, members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference or any other nation individually or in league with others to determine the future governance of Libya. Those who seek to overthrow the Gaddafi order have made it quite clear that they do not want foreign intervention, and any contravention of this request constitutes a violation of national sovereignty and democratic right.

The clamour for foreign intervention against Gaddafi is growing, emanating from a number of governments and those who advocate the deeply flawed approach that goes by the name of ‘humanitarian interventionism’. Unfortunately, the British government is foremost amongst those advocating military intervention, and David Cameron has made clear that all military options are under consideration including the deployment of ground troops. My primary objection to such an approach has already been made: any such action would constitute an intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation-state, but there are many more good reasons not to intervene:

• Firstly, there is no British national security interest at stake in Libya.  
• Secondly, any intervention by the UK, NATO or any other Western state or coalition thereof would be used by Gaddafi to rally Libyans to his cause by pointing to this as evidence of a ‘Western imperialist’ plot to depose him and subjugate Libya to their interests.  
• Thirdly, the argument that we should intervene upon so-called ‘humanitarian grounds’ is spurious, for if such grounds are to be used as justification to wage war on regimes around the globe, might not equal or better cases be made for war against North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Burma or China?  
• Fourthly, Western intervention in another Muslim majority state would recruit even more zealots to the international jihadist movement.  
• Fifthly, once Gaddafi was toppled, what objectives would any intervening power or coalition possess with a view to the reconstitution of the Libyan political order? Might it not prove to be as intractable and violent a quagmire as Iraq or Afghanistan? Where are the clear strategic objectives? There appear to be none. 
• Sixthly, military intervention always involves ‘collateral damage’. Given this, even Libyans who might conceivably call upon outside powers to intervene, could subsequently come to hate and resent them.  
• Seventhly, we are bankrupt and our armed forces have just been slashed and are militarily overstretched.

The case for the UK's potentially disastrous intervention in Libya appears to be driven by a fundamental lack of clear-headed strategic thinking regarding our national security. The Conservative Party, the FCO and RUSI all appear to have been infected by the globalist bacillus and its affiliated virus of 'humanitarian interventionism'. Our national security priorities should above all be national. We should thus focus upon securing our borders, eradicating pirates (yes, the pirates themselves, for without pirates there can be no piracy) and maintaining a suitable deterrent to ensure that we are never attacked by another state. Withdrawal from NATO should also be a top priority. We have no right to interfere in the affairs of other states, just as they have no right to interfere in our sovereign affairs. Libya for the Libyans, and Britain for the Britons. Show me someone who objects to that, and I’ll show you an anti-democrat.