cowardness | psychosputnik

Kategorie-Archiv: cowardness

Euer Recht auf Feigheit

Veröffentlicht am 23. Januar 2015 von jsbielicki Hinterlasse einen Kommentar

Süddeutsche Zeitung, 20.01.2015, S.11

Zwingt der Terror der postheroischen Gesellschaft ein neues Heldentum auf?

Von Herfried Münkler

Moderne westliche Gesellschaften sind durch die Erzeugung von Angst und Schrecken verwundbar – zumal dann, wenn Angst und Schrecken nicht die Folge zufälliger Unfälle oder Katastrophen sind, in denen sich ein Rest unbeherrschbarer Natur zeigt, sondern bewusst und gezielt erzeugt werden. Genau darauf gründet sich die Strategie des Terrorismus: dass von den Anschlägen ebenso wie der demonstrativen Todesbereitschaft der Attentäter ein Schrecken ausgeht, der die Gesellschaft in ihrem Kern trifft, indem er sie entweder einschüchtert oder unbedachte Reaktionen hervorruft.

Terrorismus nutzt Angst, um Irrationalität zu provozieren. Diese Irrationalität kann im individuellen Verhalten liegen, wie in der Ersetzung von Flugreisen durch lange Autofahrten, was in den USA nach dem 11. September 2001 zu einem deutlichen Anstieg tödlicher Verkehrsunfälle führte. Sie kann auch in kriegerischen Interventionen liegen, die im Ergebnis aber mehr Opfer fordern und einen höheren Schaden zur Folge haben als die Anschläge selbst. Es sind unsere Angst und manche Formen ihrer Bearbeitung, die als Schlagkraftverstärker des Terrorismus wirken.

Offenbar gibt es eine Ambivalenz der postheroischen Gesellschaft: Was im Nachkriegseuropa eine unerlässliche Voraussetzung für das friedliche Zusammenleben der Völker war – nämlich die tiefe Aversion gegenüber politisch eingeforderter Opferbereitschaft, die anschließend als rettende Tat gerühmt wurde -, erweist sich gegenüber dem Terrorismus als die Achillesferse. Eine Handvoll zu allem entschlossener Attentäter kann eine Gesellschaft von zig Millionen Menschen bis ins Mark treffen. Das haben die Anschläge von Paris einmal mehr gezeigt. Unter dem Eindruck terroristischer Anschläge erfahren Gesellschaften ihre postheroischen Dispositionen nicht als Ermöglicher friedlichen Glücks, sondern als Ausdruck von Schwäche.

Eine der ersten Reaktionen besteht deswegen darin, dass die Opfer des Anschlags zu Helden erklärt werden. So war es mit den Feuerwehrleuten in New York, so ist es jetzt mit einigen Polizisten in Paris. Man redet von Helden und zeichnet sie als solche aus, um die strategische Verwundbarkeit der postheroischen Gesellschaft zu camouflieren. Man leugnet das Postheroische und unternimmt semantische Manöver, indem man die Attentäter einer „feigen Tat“ bezichtigt, der man die eigenen Helden gegenüberstellt. Das ist die erste Verteidigungslinie.

Normalerweise kann die postheroische Gesellschaft mit einer gewissen Anzahl von Opfern durchaus umgehen – vorausgesetzt, es handelt sich dabei um Opfer im viktimen und nicht im sakrifiziellen Sinn, also um solche, die durch Zufall zum Opfer geworden sind und nicht sich selbst geopfert haben, um andere zu retten oder einer großen Idee zum Durchbruch zu verhelfen. Mit Letzteren wird im Normalbetrieb nicht gerechnet. Die postheroische Gesellschaft geht davon aus, dass alles funktioniert, ohne auf sakrifizielle Opfer angewiesen zu sein. Sie ist auf dem Prinzip des Tauschs begründet, in dem zum Vorteil beider ein Gut den Besitzer wechselt.

Das kann man vom sakrifiziellen Opfer nicht sagen, zumal nicht in einer aufgeklärten Gesellschaft, in der das Feuer religiöser Inbrunst erloschen ist. Mögen religiös-fundamentalistische Attentäter ihr Selbstopfer als vorteilhaften Tausch begreifen – wir können sie darin nicht verstehen und halten sie für irregeleitet, fanatisch oder seelisch krank. Sie sind für uns therapiebedürftig, und wenn wir gut drauf sind, machen wir uns über sie lustig, auch in der Form von Karikaturen. Therapieangebot und Spott verweigern dem, der zur Selbstsakrifizierung bereit ist, den heiligen Ernst, den er für sich in Anspruch nimmt.

Das Selbstopfer wird dabei als missverstandener Tausch dechiffriert: Die Attentäter verweisen auf Gott und den Propheten, aber im Kern meinen sie immer sich selbst. Sie wollen sich durch ihr Opfer selbst erhöhen. Und genau das verweigert ihnen die postheroische Gesellschaft. Nichts ist demütigender, als in seinem sakrifiziellen Eifer nicht ernst genommen zu werden. Und genau dieses Nicht-ernst-Nehmen, sei es in Form von Indifferenz oder Spott, gehört zu den Funktionsmodi der postheroischen Gesellschaft. Als tauschbasierte Gesellschaft kann sie nicht anders, als sich der intellektuellen und moralischen Zumutung des Opfergedankens zu entledigen. Also ziehen die Opferversessenen in den Krieg, wo ihnen die hierzulande verweigerte Anerkennung zuteil werden soll.

Aber genügen Indifferenz und Spott für die Selbstbehauptung der postheroischen Gesellschaft in Konfrontation mit denen, die sie deswegen verachten und bekämpfen? Über lange Zeit haben die europäischen Gesellschaften alle, die das sakrifizielle Opfer als einzig echte Form der Anerkennung suchten, ziehen lassen: Die meisten gingen nach Syrien, wo sie sich einer der Bürgerkriegsparteien anschlossen, einige wenige auch in die Ostukraine, wo sie auf Seiten der prorussischen Separatisten oder in den Reihen ukrainischer Freiwilligenverbände kämpften. Man hoffte, sich so dieses Problems entledigt zu haben.

Aber das war ein Irrtum. Denn einige von ihnen kamen zurück und sind nun, heroisiert und/oder traumatisiert, ein Problem für unsere Gesellschaft: Sie zwingen uns die Wiederaufnahme von Elementen des Heroischen auf. Die Anschläge von Paris und die nachfolgenden Debatten zeigen die Grundparadoxie der postheroischen Gesellschaft: Sie ist auf Helden angewiesen, um sich der Bedrohung ihres Selbstverständnisses durch terroristische Attentäter erwehren zu können. Die postheroische Gesellschaft ist ohne Rückgriff auf einen Restbestand des Heroischen nicht überlebensfähig: deswegen die mediale Konstruktion von Anschlagsopfern als Gegenhelden.

Nun ist die Anleihe beim Heroischen nicht unbedingt neu: Ganz selbstverständlich erwartet auch die postheroische Gesellschaft von ihren Soldaten und Polizisten ein erhebliches Maß an Selbstopferbereitschaft im Fall der „rettenden Tat“. Das ist die zweite Verteidigungslinie. Ähnliches gilt auch für die freiwilligen Helfer, die in Krisengebiete aufbrechen oder bei der Seuchenbekämpfung helfen. Aber die Zumutung des Heroischen bleibt auf professionelle Gruppen und Freiwillige beschränkt. Das hat die post- mit der präheroischen Gesellschaft gemein: dass sie die Erwartung der Opferbereitschaft vom Zentrum der Gesellschaft fernhält und an deren Außenbereich bestimmten Berufen zuweist. In den heroischen Gesellschaften des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts war das anders, als im Zeichen von Republikanismus oder Nationalismus der Staat von den männlichen Bürgern die Bereitschaft zum Selbstopfer erwartete und die Gesellschaft jene ächtete, die sich dem entziehen wollten. Die postheroische Gesellschaft kennt dagegen ein Recht auf Feigheit, das nur bei wenigen Berufen aus professionellen Gründen eingeschränkt ist.

Terroristische Anschläge bringen diese Ordnung durcheinander, indem sie vorzugsweise die von der Verpflichtung zu Mut und Tapferkeit Freigestellten attackieren. Die jüngsten Großdemonstrationen sind eine Reaktion der postheroischen Zivilgesellschaft, die sich auf diese Weise Mut macht. Je mehr kommen, desto besser fühlt man sich. Das verbleibt freilich noch weitgehend im Rahmen der postheroischen Gesellschaft: Das mit der Demonstrationsteilnahme verbundene Risiko ist umso kleiner, je mehr Leute kommen. Außerdem muss man nur für einen begrenzten Zeitraum mutig sein.

Das ist bei Satirikern, Autoren und insbesondere Karikaturisten anders. Sie müssen jetzt dauerhaft mutig sein, um die „Schere im Kopf“ nicht wirken zu lassen. Auf solchen Mut ist die postheroische Gesellschaft angewiesen, wenn sie mit den Mitteln der Information, Aufklärung und des Spotts ihre Gegner und Herausforderer bekämpfen will. Dass wir nicht ohne ein paar Helden auskommen, war immer klar. Aber die Pariser Anschläge und die Diskussionen seitdem zeigen: Die postheroische Gesellschaft braucht jetzt zusätzliche Verteidiger, und zwar solche, in deren Tätigkeitsbeschreibung die Erwartung des Sakrifiziellen eigentlich nicht vorgesehen ist. Sie muss eine dritte, tiefe Verteidigungslinie errichten, in der sich eine unheroische Tapferkeit, nämlich die, seine Arbeit unter der Drohung von Anschlägen zu machen, der Selbstinszenierung des Heroischen entgegenstellt.

Herfried Münkler hat einen Lehrstuhl für Theorie der Politik an der Berliner Humboldt-Universität inne. Zuletzt erschien sein Buch „Der Große Krieg. Die Welt 1914 – 1918“.

Nichts ist demütigender, als in seinem heiligen Ernst nicht ernst genommen zu werden

Für Opferbereitschaft sind eigentlich nur noch bestimmte Berufsgruppen zuständig

https://www.genios.de:443/document/SZ__A59093216

Siehe auch: German Angst

https://psychosputnik.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/german-angst/

„Wenn europäische Machthaber sich wirklich für uns interessierten, dann würden sie – statt Geld zu schicken, damit wir ihnen helfen, die Juden loszuwerden – uns dabei unterstützen, eine bessere Regierung zu finden – eine, die sich um den Alltag und das Wohl ihrer Bürger kümmert, statt nur zu versuchen, an immer mehr und mehr Geldgeschenke aus Europa zu kommen. Das ist jetzt ein großes Geschäft für die palästinensischen Führer, es ist an keine Konditionen geknüpft, warum sollten sie aufhören? Selbst jetzt, nach der vernichtenden Niederlage der Hamas, hat niemand in Europa auch nur vorgeschlagen, dass die Entwaffnung der Hamas und Demilitarisierung des Gazastreifens zur Bedingung gemacht werden müssten, wenn Mittel für den Wiederaufbau bereitgestellt sollen.
[…]
Israel hat nie etwas gesagt oder getan, das auf irgendeinen solchen Plan hingedeutet hätte. Im Gegenteil: Während Israel sich verteidigt hat, hat man dabei dennoch größtmögliche Anstrengungen unternommen, keine palästinensischen Zivilisten zu verletzen, obwohl die israelische Armee in der Lage wäre, unbeschreibliche Zerstörung zu verursachen, wenn sie denn wollte. Wir machen Witze darüber, wie glücklich wir sind, Israel als unseren »Feind« zu haben, und dass jeder solch einen Feind haben sollte. Kann man sich vorstellen, was für ein Massaker an den Juden – und an den Christen und anderen – es gäbe, wenn der Iran oder Isis die Waffen hätte, über die Israel verfügt? Es ist genau anders herum. Wir, die Palästinenser, sind diejenigen, die seit Jahrzehnten die Vernichtung der »zionistischen Entität« fordern und danach rufen, die Juden ins Meer zu treiben. Einige von uns richten ihr Handeln immer noch daran aus, dieses Ziel zu erreichen.“

http://lizaswelt.net/2015/01/19/europa-der-wahre-feind-der-palaestinenser/

Remember: Do X! Don´t do Y!

Protect innocent, respect life, defend art, preserve creativity!

What´s Left? Antisemitism!

http://www.jsbielicki.com/jsb-79.htm

DJ Psycho Diver Sant – too small to fail
Tonttu Korvatunturilta Kuunsilta JSB
Tip tap tip tap tipetipe tip tap heija!
http://www.psychosputnik.com
http://www.saatchionline.com/jsbielicki
https://psychosputnik.wordpress.com/

They want 1984, we want 1776

They are on the run, we are on the march!

Dummheit ist, wenn jemand nicht weiß, was er wissen könnte.

Political correctness ist, wenn man aus Feigheit lügt, um Dumme nicht zu verärgern, die die Wahrheit nicht hören wollen.

“Im Streit um moralische Probleme, ist der Relativismus die erste Zuflucht der Schurken.“ Roger Scruton

Antisemitismus ist, wenn man Juden, Israel übelnimmt, was man anderen nicht übelnimmt.

Islam ist weniger eine Religion und mehr eine totalitäre Gesellschaftsordnung, eine Ideologie, die absoluten Gehorsam verlangt und keinen Widerspruch, keinerlei Kritik duldet und das Denken und Erkenntnis verbietet. Der wahre Islam ist ganz anders, wer ihn findet wird eine hohe Belohnung erhalten.

Wahnsinn bedeute, immer wieder das gleiche zu tun, aber dabei stets ein anderes Resultat zu erwarten.

Gutmenschen sind Menschen, die gut erscheinen wollen, die gewissenlos das Gewissen anderer Menschen zu eigenen Zwecken mit Hilfe selbst inszenierter Empörungen instrumentalisieren.

Irritationen verhelfen zu weiteren Erkenntnissen, Selbstzufriedenheit führt zur Verblödung,

Wenn ein Affe denkt, „ich bin ein Affe“, dann ist es bereits ein Mensch.

Ein Mensch mit Wurzeln soll zur Pediküre gehen.

Wenn jemand etwas zu sagen hat, der kann es immer sehr einfach sagen. Wenn jemand nichts zu sagen hat, der sagt es dann sehr kompliziert.

Sucht ist, wenn jemand etwas macht, was er machen will und sucht jemand, der es macht, daß er es nicht macht und es nicht machen will.

Sollen die Klugen immer nachgeben, dann wird die Welt von Dummen regiert. Zu viel „Klugheit“ macht dumm.

Wenn man nur das Schlechte bekämpft, um das Leben zu schützen, bringt man gar nichts Gutes hervor und ein solches Leben ist dann nicht mehr lebenswert und braucht nicht beschützt zu werden, denn es ist dann durch ein solches totales Beschützen sowieso schon tot. Man kann so viel Geld für Versicherungen ausgeben, daß man gar nichts mehr zum Versichern hat. Mit Sicherheit ist es eben so.

Zufriedene Sklaven sind die schlimmsten Feinde der Freiheit.

Kreativität ist eine Intelligenz, die Spaß hat.

Wen die Arbeit krank macht, der soll kündigen!

Wenn Deutsche über Moral reden, meinen sie das Geld.

Ein Mensch ohne Erkenntnis ist dann lediglich ein ängstlicher, aggressiver, unglücklicher Affe.

Denken ist immer grenzüberschreitend.

Der Mob, der sich das Volk nennt, diskutiert nicht, sondern diffamiert.

Legal ist nicht immer legitim.

Wer nicht verzichten kann, lebt unglücklich.

Sogenannte Sozial-, Kultur-, Geisteswissenschaften, Soziologie, Psychologie, Psychotherapie, Psychoanalyse, sind keine Wissenschaften mehr, sondern immanent religiöse Kultpropheten, organisiert wie Sekten.

Ohne eine starke Opposition atrophiert jede scheinbare Demokratie zur Tyrannei, und ebenso eine Wissenschaft, zur Gesinnung einer Sekte.

Man kann alles nur aus gewisser Distanz erkennen, wer sich ereifert, empört, wer mit seiner Nase an etwas klebt, der hat die Perspektive verloren, der erkennt nichts mehr, der hat nur noch seine Phantasie von der Welt im Kopf. So entsteht Paranoia, die sich Religion, und Religion als Politik, sogar als Wissenschaft nennt.

Islamisten sind eine Gefahr, deswegen werden sie als solche nicht gesehen. Juden sind keine Gefahr, deswegen werden sie als solche gesehen. So funktioniert die Wahrnehmung von Feiglingen.

Humorlose Menschen könner nur fürchten oder hassen und werden Mönche oder Terroristen.

Menschen sind nicht gleich, jeder einzelne Mensch ist ein Unikat.

Erkenntnis gilt für alle, auch für Muslime, Albaner, Frauen und Homosexuelle.

Islam gehört zu Deutschland, Judentum gehört zu Israel.

Der Konsensterror (Totalitarismus) ist in Deutschland allgegenwärtig.

Es wird nicht mehr diskutiert, sondern nur noch diffamiert.

Es ist eine Kultur des Mobs. Wie es bereits gewesen ist.

Harmonie ist nur, wenn man nicht kommuniziert.

Man soll niemals mit jemand ins Bett gehen, der mehr Probleme hat, als man selbst.

>>Evelyn Waugh, sicherlich der witzigste Erzähler des vergangenen Jahrhunderts, im Zweiten Weltkrieg, herauskommend aus einem Bunker während einer deutschen Bombardierung Jugoslawiens, blickte zum Himmel, von dem es feindliche Bomben regnete und bemerkte: “Wie alles Deutsche, stark übertrieben.“<< Joseph Epstein

Man muß Mut haben, um witzig zu sein.

Dumm und blöd geht meistens zusammen.

Charlie Hebdo: solche Morde an Juden sind euch egal, mal sehen wie”angemessen” ihr reagiert, wenn (wenn, nicht falls) eure Städte von Islamisten mit Kasam-Raketen beschossen werden.

Christopher Hitchens großartig: „In einer freien Gesellschaft hat niemand das Recht, nicht beleidigt zu werden.“

Je mehr sich jemand narzisstisch aufbläht, desto mehr fühlt er sich beleidigt und provoziert.

“Das Problem mit der Welt ist, daß die Dummen felsenfest überzeugt sind und die Klugen voller Zweifel.” – Bertrand Russel

Das Problem mit den Islamisten in Europa soll man genauso lösen, wie es Europa für den Nahen Osten verlangt: jeweils eine Zweistaatenlösung, die Hälfte für Muslime, die andere Hälfte für Nicht-Muslime, mit einer gemeinsamen Hauptstadt.

Was darf Satire? Alles! Nur nicht vom Dummkopf verstanden werden, weil es dann keine Satire war.

Islamimus ist Islam, der Gewalt predigt.

Islam ist eine Religion der Liebe,und wer es anzweifelt, ist tot.

Krieg ist Frieden. Freiheit ist Sklaverei. Unwissenheit ist Stärke. Der Islam ist die friedliche Religion der Liebe – George Orwell 2015

Islam ist verantwortlich für gar nichts, Juden sind schuld an allem.

Islamisten sind Satanisten. Islamismus ist eine Religion von Idioten.

Leute fühlen sich immer furchtbar beleidigt, wenn man ihre Lügen nicht glaubt.

Jeder ist selbst verantwortlich für seine Gefühle.

Die Psychoanalyse geht niemanden außer den Psychoanalytiker und seinen Patienten etwas an, und alle anderen sollen sich verpissen.

“Zeit ist das Echo einer Axt
im Wald. “
– Philip Larkin, Gesammelte Gedichte

Wenn jemand wie Islamisten sein Ego endlos aufbläht, dann verletzt er seine eigenen Gefühle schon morgens beim Scheißen.

„Die sieben Todsünden der modernen Gesellschaft: Reichtum ohne Arbeit Genuß ohne Gewissen Wissen ohne Charakter Geschäft ohne Moral Wissenschaft ohne Menschlichkeit Religion ohne Opfer Politik ohne Prinzipien.“
―Mahatma Gandhi

„Wo man nur die Wahl hat zwischen Feigheit und Gewalt, würde ich zur Gewalt raten.“
―Mahatma Gandhi

Warum zeigt sich Allah nicht? Weil er mit solchen Arschlöchern nichts zu tun haben will.

„Wenn der Faschismus wiederkehrt, wird er nicht sagen: ‚Ich bin der Faschismus’. Nein, er wird sagen: ‚Ich bin der Antifaschismus’.” – Ignazio Silone

Politische Korrektheit verlangt eine Sprache für ein Poesiealbum.

Stupidity is demonstrated by people lacking the knowledge they could achieve

Political correctness can be defined as the telling of a lie out of the cowardice in an attempt to avoid upsetting fools not willing to face up to the truth

“In arguments about moral problems, relativism is the first refuge of the scoundrel.” Roger Scruton

Antisemitism is when one blames the Jews or Israel for issues, he does not blame others

Islam is less a religion and more a totalitarian society, an ideology that demands absolute obedience and tolerates no dissent, no criticism, and prohibits the thinking, knowledge and recognition. True Islam is totally different, the one who will find it will receive a very high reward.

Craziness is, when one always does the same but expects a different outcome

If a monkey thinks “I am a monkey”, then it is already a human

A man with roots should go for a pedicure

Self smugness leads to idiocy, being pissed off leads to enlightenment

If someone has something to say, he can tell it always very easily. If someone has nothing to say, he says it in a very complicated way

Addiction is, when somebody does something he wants to do, yet seeks someone who can make it so he won’t do it and doesn’t want to, either.

If the clever people always gave in, the world would be reigned by idiots. Too much “cleverness” makes you stupid.

If one only fights evil to protect life, one produces nothing good at all and such a life then becomes no longer worth living and thus requires no protection, for it is already unlived due to such a total protection. One can spend so much money on insurance, that one has nothing left to insure. Safety works in the same way.

Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom.

Creativity is an intelligence having fun.

If working makes you sick, fuck off, leave the work!

If Germans talk about morality, they mean money.

A man without an insight is just an anxious, aggressive, unhappy monkey.

Thinking is always trespassing.

The mob, who calls himself the people, does not discuss, just defames.

Legal is not always legitimate.

Who can not do without, lives unhappy.

So called social, culture sciences, sociology, psychology psychotherapy, psychoanalysis, are not anymore scientific, but immanent religious cult-prophets, organized as sects.

Without a strong opposition any apparent democracy atrophies to a tyranny, and as well a science , to an attitude of a religious sect.

You can recognize everything from a certain distance only, who is zealous, outraged, who sticks his nose in something, this one has lost the perspective, he recognizes anything more, he has only his imagination of the world in his head. This creates paranoia, which is called religion, and a religion as politics, even as a science.

Islamists are a real danger, therefore they will not be seen as such. Jews are not a danger, therefore they are seen as such. It is how the perception by cowards functions.

People without a sense of humor are able only to fear or to hate and become monks or terrorists.

People are not equal, each single person is unique.

Insight applies to everyone, including Muslims, Albanians, women and homosexuals.

Islam belongs to Germany, Judaism belongs to Israel.

The totalitarian Terror of consensus is ubiquitous in Germany.
There are no discussions anymore, but defamations only.
It is a culture of the mob. As it has already been.
Harmony is only if you do not communicate.

One should never go to bed with someone who has more problems than you already have.

>>Evelyn Waugh, surely the wittiest novelist of the past century, in World War II, coming out of a bunker during a German bombing of Yugoslavia, looked up at the sky raining enemy bombs and remarked, “Like everything German, vastly overdone.”<< Joseph Epstein

One has to be brave, to have a wit.

Stupid and dull belong mostly together.

Charlie Hebdo: you don´t care if such murders are comitted to Jews, we will see how “adequate” you will react when (when, not if), Islamists will begin to bombard your cities with Kasam missiles.

Christopher Hitchens: “In a free society, no one has the right not to be offended.“

The more someone narcissistic inflates , the more he feels insulted and provoked.

“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” – Bertrand Russell

The problem with the Islamists in Europe should be solved exactly as Europe requires to the Middle East: a two-state solution, a half for muslims and the another half for not-muslims , with a common capital.

What may satire? Everything! Except be understood by the fool, because then it was not a satire.

Islamimus is Islam preaching violence.

Islam is a religion of love, and he who doubts is dead.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Islam is a peaceful religion of love – George Orwell 2015

Islam is not responsible for anything, Jews are guilty of everything.

Islamists are satanists. Islamism is a religion of idiots.

People feel always terrible offended if you do not believe their lies.

Everyone is responsible for his feelings.

Psychoanalysis is nobody’s business except the psychoanalyst and his patient, and everybody else can fuck off.

“Time is the echo of an axe
Within a wood.”
― Philip Larkin, Collected Poems

If someone inflates endless his ego, as Islamists do, then he hurts his own feelings already in his morning own shit.

„The seven deadly sins of modern society. Wealth without work pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character business without morality Science without humanity, worship without sacrifice Politics without principles“
-Mahatma Gandhi

„Where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.“
-Mahatma Gandhi

Why Allah does not shows himself? Because he does not want to do anything with such assholes.

„When fascism returns, he will not say, ‚I am the fascism‚. No, he will say, ‚I am the anti-fascism „– Ignazio Silone.

Political correctness requires a language for a poetry album.

Que Sera, Sera, Whatever Will Be, Will Be

Veröffentlicht am 18. Januar 2015 von jsbielicki Hinterlasse einen Kommentar

Que Sera, Sera, Whatever Will Be, Will Be

France and the rest of Western Europe have never honestly confronted the issues raised by Muslim immigration.

In a world that prized “identity,” Muslim immigrants were aristocrats.

Two women talk as police officers stand in front of the courthouse in Meaux, near Paris, on Sept. 22, 2011. The court convicted two other women for publicly wearing Islamic veils; France banned face coverings earlier that year. European Pressphoto Agency

The Wall Street Journal

By Christopher Caldwell, January 16, 2015

Immigration and Islam: Europe’s Crisis of Faith

The terrorist assault on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo on Jan. 7 may have been organized by al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen. But the attack, along with another at a Paris kosher market days later, was carried out by French Muslims descended from recent waves of North African and West African immigration. Well before the attacks, which left 17 dead, the French were discussing the possibility that tensions with the country’s own Muslim community were leading France toward some kind of armed confrontation.

Consider Éric Zemmour, a slashing television debater and a gifted polemicist. His history of the collapse of France’s postwar political order, “Le suicide français,” was No. 1 on the best-seller lists for several weeks this fall. “Today, our elites think it’s France that needs to change to suit Islam, and not the other way around,” Mr. Zemmour said on a late-night talk show in October, “and I think that with this system, we’re headed toward civil war.”

More recently, Michel Houellebecq published “Submission,” a novel set in the near future. In it, the re-election of France’s current president, François Hollande, has drawn recruits to a shadowy group proclaiming its European identity. “Sooner or later, civil war between Muslims and the rest of the population is inevitable,” a sympathizer explains. “They draw the conclusion that the sooner this war begins, the better chance they’ll have of winning it.” Published, as it happened, on the morning of the attacks, Mr. Houellebecq’s novel replaced Mr. Zemmour’s at the top of the best-seller list, where it remains.

Two days after the Charlie Hebdo killings, there was a disturbing indication on Le Monde’s website of how French people were thinking. One item about the killing vastly outpaced all others in popularity. The reactions of Europe’s leaders was shared about 5,000 times, tales of Muslim schoolchildren with mixed feelings about 6,000, a detailed account of the Charlie Hebdo editorial meeting ended by the attack, 9,000. Topping them all, shared 28,000 times, was a story about reprisals: “Mosques become targets, French Muslims uneasy.” Those clicks are the sound of French fear that something larger may be under way.

Marine Le Pen of France’s Front National acknowledges supporters on Nov. 30. Populist parties are rising across Europe as voters feel abandoned by the mainstream political class. Getty Images

France’s problem has elements of a military threat, a religious conflict and a violent civil-rights movement. It is not unique. Every country of Western Europe has a version. For a half-century, millions of immigrants from North and sub-Saharan Africa have arrived, lured by work, welfare, marriage and a refuge from war. There are about 20 million Muslims in Europe, with some 5 million of them in France, according to the demographer Michèle Tribalat. That amounts to roughly 8% of the population of France, compared with about 5% of both the U.K. and Germany.

Such a migration is not something that Europeans would have countenanced at any other moment in their generally xenophobic history, and the politicians who permitted it to happen were not lucky. The movement coincided with a collapse in European birthrates, which lent the immigration an unstoppable momentum, and with the rise of modern political Islam, which gave the diaspora a radical edge.

Just why Europe has had such trouble can be partially understood by contrasting it with the U.S. Europe’s welfare states are more developed and, until recently, more open to noncitizens, so illegal or “underground” immigration has been low. But employment rates have been low, too. If Americans have traditionally considered immigrants the hardest-working segment of their population, Europeans have had the opposite stereotype. In the early 1970s, 2 million of the 3 million foreigners in Germany were in the labor force; by the turn of this century, 2 million of 7.5 million were.

Europe was not just disoriented by the trauma of World War II. It was also demoralized and paralyzed by the memory of Nazism and the continuing dismantling of colonialism. Leaders felt that they lacked the moral standing to address problems that were as plain as the noses on their faces—just as U.S. leaders ducked certain racial issues in the wake of desegregation.

Europeans drew the wrong lessons from the American civil-rights movement. In the U.S., there was race and there was immigration. They were separate matters that could (at least until recently) be disentangled by people of good faith. In Europe, the two problems have long been inseparable. Voters who worried about immigration were widely accused of racism, or later of “Islamophobia.”

In France, antiracism set itself squarely against freedom of speech. The passage of the 1990 Gayssot Law, which punished denial of the Holocaust, was a watershed. Activist lobbies sought to expand such protections by limiting discussion of a variety of historical events—the slave trade, colonialism, foreign genocides. This was backed up by institutional muscle. In the 1980s, President François Mitterrand’s Socialist party created a nongovernmental organization called SOS Racisme to rally minority voters and to hound those who worked against their interests.

Older bodies such as the communist-inspired Movement against Racism and for Friendship Among the Peoples made a specialty of threatening (and sometimes carrying out) lawsuits against European intellectuals for the slightest trespasses against political correctness: the late Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci for her post-9/11 lament “The Rage and the Pride,” the philosopher Alain Finkielkraut for doubting that the 2005 riots in France’s suburban ghettos were due to unemployment, the Russia scholar Hélène Carrère d’Encausse for speculating about the role of polygamy in the problems of West African immigrants.

Speech codes have done little to facilitate entry into the workforce for immigrants and their children or to reduce crime. But they have intimidated European voting publics, insulated politicians from criticism and turned certain crucial matters into taboos. Immigrant and ethnic issues have become tightly bound to the issue of building the multinational European Union, which has removed vast areas of policy from voter accountability. “Anti-European” sentiments continue to rise.

A woman holds up a sign that says, ‘I am Charlie, I am Jewish, I am a Muslim, I am French’ during a rally in Paris on Jan. 11. Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

So impressed were the Europeans with their own generosity that they failed to notice that the population of second- and third-generation immigrants was growing bigger, stronger, more unified and less inclined to take moral instruction. This is partly a demographic problem. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, Western Europe has had some of the lowest birthrates of any civilization on record. Without immigration, Europe’s population would fall by a hundred million by midcentury, according to U.N. estimates.

When mass immigration began, Europeans did not give much thought to the influence of Islam. In the 1960s, there might have been worries that a North African was, say, a Nasserite Arab nationalist, but not that he was a would-be jihadist. Too many Europeans forgot that people carry a long past within them—and that, even when they do not, they sometimes wish to. Materialistic, acquisitive, averse to God and family, Europe’s culture appeared cold, dead and unsatisfying to many Muslims. It failed to satisfy a lot of non-Muslims too, but until they ran out of borrowed money with the 2008 crash, they could avoid facing it squarely.

Europeans didn’t know enough about the cultural background of Muslims to browbeat them the same way they did the native-born. Muslims felt none of the historic guilt over fascism and colonialism that so affected non-Muslim Europeans. They had a freedom of political action that Europeans lacked.

As European politics grew duller and the stakes lower, many political romantics looked enviously at the aspirations of the Muslim poor, particularly regarding Palestine. You could see a hint of this last weekend in the BBC journalist who interrupted a mourning Frenchwoman, distraught about the targeting of Jews for murder at a kosher supermarket, to say that “the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands.”

In a world that prized “identity,” Muslim immigrants were aristocrats. Those who became radicalized developed the most monstrous kind of self-regard. A chilling moment in the most recent terrorist drama came when the TV network RTL phoned the kosher supermarket where the Malian-French hostage-taker, Amedy Coulibaly, was holding his victims at gunpoint. He refused to talk but hung up the phone carelessly. The newspaper Le Monde was able to publish a transcript of the strutting stupidity to which he then gave expression:

“They’re always trying to make you believe that Muslims are terrorists. Me, I’m born in France. If they hadn’t been attacked elsewhere, I wouldn’t be here…Think of the people who had Bashar al-Assad in Syria. They were torturing people…We didn’t intervene for years…Then bombers, coalition of 50,000 countries, all that…Why did they do that?”

The Muslim community is not to be confused with the terrorists it produces. But left to its own, it probably lacks the means, the inclination and the courage to stand up to the faction, however small, that supports terrorism. In 1995, there were riots among French Muslims after the arrest of Khalid Kelkal of Lyon, who had planted several bombs—in a train station, near a Jewish school, on a high-speed rail track. In 2012, when Mohamed Merah of Toulouse was killed by police after having gunned down soldiers, a rabbi and three Jewish elementary-school children, his brother professed himself “proud,” and his father threatened to file a wrongful-death suit against the government.

Populist parties like the U.K. Independence Party wind up, by voter demand, placing immigration and multiculturalism at the center of their concerns. PA Wire/Zuma Press

And when Charlie Hebdo printed a memorial cover this week that had a picture of its controversial cartoon character “Muhammad” on it, it was as if the attacks had never happened: Muslim community spokesmen, even moderate ones, issued dire warnings about the insult to them and their coreligionists. To many Muslims in France and the rest of Europe, the new drawings were evidence not that the terrorists had failed to kill a magazine but that the French had failed to heed a warning. Impressive though the post-attack memorial marches were, “the working classes and the North African and West African immigrant kids weren’t there,” as the president of France’s Young Socialists told the newspaper Le Temps.

It may seem harsh to criticize the French in their time of grief, but they are responding today with tools that have failed them in previous crises. They reflexively look at their own supposed bigotry as always, somehow, the ultimate cause of Islamist terrorism, and they limit their efforts to making minority communities feel more at home.

The mysterious riots of 2005 in France—which lasted for almost three weeks, during which the rioters made no claims and put forward no leaders—were chalked up to deprivation. The French media responded with an effort to hire more nonwhite news anchors and reporters, and the government promised to spend more in the suburbs. Now, after the murders in Paris, the contradictions continue to accumulate:

On religion: Mr. Hollande has insisted that the attacks have “nothing to do with Islam.” At the same time, Prime Minister Manuel Valls speaks of “moderate Islam” and rails against “conservatism and obscurantism”—as if the violence had everything to do with Islam, and even with religious devotion in general.
On spying: Some in the French government blame intelligence failures, since the secret services tracked the Charlie Hebdo killers Said and Chérif Kouachi until last summer. But government officials boast of about their principled unwillingness to legislate a “Patriot Act a la française”—even as they draw daily on intelligence gathered by the U.S.
On religious hatred: Justice Minister Christiane Taubira has announced an all-out assault on “racism and anti-Semitism,” promising that those who attack others because of their religion will be fought “with rigor and resolve.” In theory, this sounds like a promise to protect Jewish shoppers from getting killed at their neighborhood grocery stores. In practice, it will mean placing limits on any inquiry into the inner dynamics of Muslim communities and may wind up increasing the terrorist threat rather than diminishing it.

What continues is the deafness of France’s government and mainstream parties to public opinion (and popular suffrage) on the issues of immigration and a multiethnic society. Mr. Hollande’s approval ratings have risen since the attacks, but they are still below 30%. In January 2013, according to the newsweekly L’Express, 74% of the French said that Islam “is not compatible with French society.” Though that number fell last year, it is almost certain to be higher now.

Voters all across Europe feel abandoned by the mainstream political class, which is why populist parties are everywhere on the rise. Whatever the biggest initial grievance of these parties—opposition to the European Union for the U.K. Independence Party, opposition to the euro for Alternative für Deutschland, corruption for Italy’s 5 Star Movement—all wind up, by voter demand, placing immigration and multiculturalism at the center of their concerns.

In France, it is the Front National, a party with antecedents on the far right, that has been the big beneficiary. In the last national election, for seats in the European Parliament, the FN, led by Marine Le Pen (daughter of the party’s founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen), topped the polls. But the ruling Socialists froze the Front National out of the recent national ceremonies of mourning, limiting participation in the Paris rally to those parties it deemed “republican.” This risks damaging the cause of republicanism more than the cause of Le Pen and her followers.

Acts of terrorism can occur without shaking a country to its core. These latest attacks, awful as they were, could be taken in stride if the majority in France felt itself secure. But it does not. Thanks to wars in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, thousands of young people who share the indignation of the Kouachis and Coulibaly are now battle-hardened and heavily armed.

France, like Europe more broadly, has been careless for decades. It has not recognized that free countries are for peoples strong enough to defend them. A willingness to join hands and to march in solidarity is a good first response to the awful events of early January. It will not be enough.

Mr. Caldwell is a senior editor at the Weekly Standard and the author of “Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West.”

http://www.wsj.com/articles/europe-immigration-and-islam-europes-crisis-of-faith-1421450060

The New Yorker, December 11, 2014

The French Obsession With National Suicide

By Alexander Stille

General Charles de Gaulle in Lyon, in March, 1968. Credit Photograph: AFP/Getty

There are few things the French find more annoying than what they call “French bashing”—a term they use in English, despite their insistence on finding French equivalents for foreign words. When Jean Tirole was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, Prime Minister Manuel Valls sent out a tweet of congratulations to “another Frenchman to the heavens,” adding, “Quel pied-de-nez au french bashing!”—“What a thumb in the nose to French bashing!”

And yet no one does French bashing more enthusiastically than the French themselves. This fall, when Éric Zemmour, a political journalist and columnist for Le Figaro, published “Le Suicide Français,” a pitiless indictment of contemporary France—the book declares the country already dead and buried—it rocketed to the top of the best-seller list.

“Le Suicide Français” expresses the anxieties of many in France who are grappling with a series of real problems: high levels of unemployment, economic stagnation, debates over the country’s place in a globalized economy, and its struggles to integrate recent waves of immigrants. But Zemmour addresses them by offering a wildly over-the-top broadside condemnation of everything that has happened in the past fifty years, such as birth control, abortion, student protests, sexual liberation, women’s rights, gay rights, immigration from Africa, American consumer capitalism, left-wing intellectualism, the European Union—forces that, he writes, have conspired to sap the vitality and greatness of the nation of Louis XIV, Napoleon, and General Charles de Gaulle. In Zemmour’s view, both the traditional French left and right (really, everyone but the French far right) have, through a mixture of blindness and cowardice, allowed for the dismantling of a national edifice based on paternal authority. It is highly revealing that Zemmour uses the term “virilité,” or virility, some twenty-three times in his five-hundred page book, suggesting a certain fixation.

The popular success of “Le Suicide Français” is in keeping with a well-established tradition: it takes its place on a long shelf of books that have declared the decline or death of France. As early as 1783, as Sean M. Quinlan notes, in “The Great Nation in Decline,” the French began to churn out tracts like one which laments that “a flagging, weak and less vivacious generation has replaced, without succeeding, that brilliant [Frankish] race, those men of combat and hunting, whose bodies were more robust, cleaner and of greater height than those of today’s civilized peoples.” The French defeat in the Franco-Prussian war, in 1871, set off a spate of self-flagellation, with writers decrying a declining birth rate, an inferior education system, and moral bankruptcy. Although nostalgists like Zemmour consider the late nineteenth century a golden age, when France emerged as an imperial power and a center of cultural greatness, his counterparts in that period saw a cesspool of effeminacy and decline. One of the big books of 1892 was “Degeneration,” whose author, Max Nordau, was Hungarian but lived most of his life in Paris. He excoriates Émile Zola and writes that the Impressionists can only be understood in terms of “hysteria and degeneracy.”

Zemmour describes France as an ostensibly prosperous society that is “rotten from within”; wealth is a mask for inner decay. This is a well-used trope in decline literature. In the eighteen-nineties, as anti-Semitism gathered force during the Dreyfus affair, authors like Édouard Drumont, with his newspaper La France Juive and his 1896 tract “The Jews Against France,” saw signs of horrifying rot beneath the glitter and wealth of the Belle Époque. “It gave us an appearance or an illusion of revival and prosperity through financial movement, and it profited from this by making France a prey upon which all the Jews of the world fell,” he wrote. After the bloodbath of the First World War, most French citizens justifiably felt as much a sense of defeat as of victory; the period between the wars was marked by polarization and recrimination. Louis-Ferdinand Céline wrote, in his 1932 novel, “Voyage to the End of Night,” “Everything will crumble … everything is crumbling.” And even the normally judicious Raymond Aron wrote, “I lived through the thirties in the despair of French decline.… In essence, France no longer existed. It existed only in the hatred of the French for one another.”

The rapid capitulation of France when the Germans invaded, in 1940, bred a new round of soul-searching, including the classic work “Strange Defeat” by the great historian Marc Bloch. Zemmour denounces a 1990 law that made Holocaust denial a punishable offense, as well as measures that give individuals the right to sue if they feel that their ethnicity, race, or religion has been insulted, seeing them as the triumph of modern political correctness. But Zemmour ignores the purge of pro-Fascist writers after the Second World War and the execution (confirmed personally by his beloved General ge Gaulle) of the writer Robert Brasillach for his anti-Semitic, pro-Vichy, and pro-Nazi writings during the war. In fact, the anti-Fascists of the postwar period used some of the same virilité—and anti-homosexual rhetoric—in insisting that the French collaborators with Germany had “slept with the enemy” and passively allowed the nation to be “penetrated.”

Zemmour’s book is cleverly done, mingling facts and perceptive insights with wild leaps of logic, biting sarcasm, and ominous apocalyptic rhetoric. His story begins with the Events of May, 1968, with France’s student protesters trying to topple the de Gaulle government. They failed, and de Gaulle won a massive election victory in June, but Zemmour argues that their movement actually succeeded by infusing France with a series of permissive, anti-national, individualistic, anti-authoritarian, pleasure-seeking values that ironically opened the door for what the protesters claimed to hate the most: American consumerism. The following April, de Gaulle resigned and retired to write his memoir; he died the next year.

By lining up his chapters in chronological order, Zemmour creates the illusion of causality: the 1968 protests preceded de Gaulle’s death, and therefore the students killed de Gaulle. In similar fashion, social changes such as decolonization and legalized abortion came before the current period of slow growth, and therefore killed France.

Perhaps the central theme of Zemmour’s argument is the death of the father, the end of a traditional, hierarchical, authoritarian society in which men were men, women were subordinate, gays were in the closet, and France was a world power. In one passage, Zemmour obsesses about a court decision (made by a close former associate of de Gaulle) allowing French citizens to form private associations without government authorization—what would seem to be a fairly normal democratic right, but which Zemmour sees as another stab in the patriarchal back:

One forgets that the family was not conceived in the long night of history as the privileged venue of love and private happiness, but the institution that permitted the founding of a people, a society, a nation.… The father had always been the obstacle to the happiness of families from the beginning of time. Awful responsibilities of men. All guilty. But it was not an angry feminist or a long-haired rebel who placed virility on trial, but the august grey-haired minister of a conservative majority.

There is an unsettling streak of misogyny running through the book, in which the securing of elementary rights for women is presented as an insidious emasculation. Zemmour bemoans the abrogation of old laws that made it illegal for women to open bank accounts without their husband’s permission. In another passage, he cites a popular film, “Elle Court, Elle Court la Banlieue,” from 1973: “When the young bus driver slips a concupiscent hand on a charming female backside, the young woman does not sue for sexual harassment,” he writes. “Trust reigns.” That someone would cite this scene as evidence of the harmony of gender relations before feminism is both hilarious and disturbing.

Zemmour notes that everyone in the movie seems happy and excited about moving to the suburbs. This is presented as proof that France’s policy of housing its immigrants in geographical isolation outside of its major cities has nothing to do with those communities’ failed integration into the national life:

The happy suburb was not an illusion, it radiates joie de vivre in every scene of the film … it is not the high-rise buildings, the cage-like staircases, the absence of roads that provoke violence, gangs and ghettoes; but the violence, the gangs, the drugs that have transformed paradise into hell. It is not the structures that have forged the environment; it’s the population—and the change in population—that has made the environment.

In fact, “Le Suicide Français” reads at times like a manifesto for the National Front, the right-wing party of Marine Le Pen, offering a series of scapegoats for France’s troubles. It appeals to the seventy per cent of French people who feel there are too many foreigners in France, and to the sixty-two per cent who say they no longer feel as “at home” in France as they once did.

Perhaps, like Zemmour, they see France as dead or dying. Before the Second World War, France, with its raft of African and Asian colonies, governed nearly ten per cent of the planet’s landmass. In 1950, Europe accounted for twenty per cent of the world population, and today it accounts for less than ten per cent. France’s G.D.P., while still the seventh largest in the world, makes up only about 3.5 per cent of the world economy. So, of course, France has lost power, vis-à-vis the rest of the world. Zemmour seems to think that massive global changes—the tripling of the world population, decolonization, the rise of China and India—are things that France’s politicians could have and should have resisted. But the sinister conspiracies and suicidal decisions that he identifies at every turn are simply the products of the world changing, sometimes for good, sometimes for ill.

France is no longer an empire, but it is a prosperous medium-sized country with an extremely high standard of living. It is no longer the world’s cultural center, but it has far more influence than most societies. France remains among the top twenty countries by virtually all measures of the World Bank’s Human Development Index. Life expectancy in France has increased from fifty to nearly eighty-two years in the past century, even as France’s global role has shrunk. Aging population, declining birth rates, slower growth, a more skeptical attitude toward authority, and greater gender equality—those are all typical of advanced, post-industrial societies, not unique to France. There are absurdities and excesses in our politically correct, multicultural, gender-conscious world, but great advantages, too. Would Zemmour really want to return to a world in which women couldn’t open bank accounts without their husband’s permission, and homosexuals could be arrested for sodomy? In an age of supposed decline, are the French better or worse off?

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/french-obsession-national-suicide