German Freedom under attack

The leaders of a new political party in Germany, Freedom, modelled on Geert Wilders' party of the same name in Holland, have found that their political opponents on the 'left' have attempted to deny them their right to free speech. This undemocratic and oppressive behaviour has a particularly poignant resonance in Germany, which has been, within living memory, the scene of both white and red terror.

Today, for all the hypocritical talk of democracy from Germany's political Establishment, it seems clear that double standards apply. If a party is nationalist, like the NPD, its leadership may be infiltrated and subverted by paid agents of the state.

The German Freedom is just beginning its journey but already the young child has been viciously attacked by those who fear what it may achieve when full-grown.

Such attacks should be regarded as the most sincere form of compliment, and as confirmation that the party is on the right track.

More strength to Freiheit!

An open letter by the party's leaders to the bully-boys of the 'left' now follows.

The Freedom Party — Open Letter to the Left

We have heard that many of you are celebrating the cancellation of the first state convention of the citizens’ rights party for more freedom and democracy, Die Freiheit [Freedom], after you and/or your fellow travellers caused the situation by pressure and threats. On this day, there was one winner and one loser. On this day, fascism won and democracy lost.

We use the word fascism neither hyperbolically nor lightly, since it must at any rate be measured against the methods of National Socialism. Given the development of the political Left (again) in the meantime, this is more than appropriate. Apparently, it is only obvious to a few on the Left — indeed the most intelligent of them — in what tradition they actually stand.

In the 1920s and 1930s, the political debate was carried out only in part in the parliaments — and much more in the streets. Shock troops sought out those who represented a different opinion than their own, and made sure that the ordinary citizen no longer dared to voice his opinion. The intimidation by force penetrated all political levels. The SA [Sturmabteilung — Nazi storm troopers] stood by at meetings of parliament, and woe to the parliament member who dared to deviate from the party line. That is how the debate was influenced. A political system was created which instituted violence as a legitimate means.

The present-day “Antifa” is very little different from the SA of that time. Their “look” is now black instead of brown, but they use the same methods: Dissenters are pursued and silenced violently, They find every method justified — not even the family, the children, who did not choose to whom they should be born, are safe from the red SA. The red SA know no moral limits. The ideology that leads them is stronger.

They march side by side with the ultra-rightist “Grey Wolves,” who would be happy to have a greater Turkish empire — even better dominion over the whole world, and do not see that they are being used as useful idiots. They demonstrate together with the radical Islamists in demonstrations where “Jews to the gas” is shouted, and do not notice that history is repeating itself.

No doubt there will always be some insane Nazis as a fringe group. What is horrifying is the fact that Leftist Nazi organizations are cultivated and politically protected by various funds and groups. Senator Körting (SPD) cannot even perceive a political motivation in the leftist extremists. But then, why should he take action against those who are bullying his political opponents with violence and terror?

Die Freiheit differentiates quite clearly between the spiritual, religious part of Islam and the political ideology. If Muslims wish to pray to Mecca five times a day or fast for a month, we will stand protectively for their right to do so. If Muslim men treat their wives like slaves or force headscarf-wearing children to marry, that is when Clara Herrmann [Berlin representative for the Greens] stands before them to protect this “right.” That is the difference. The Left has made a virtue of turning a blind eye. It gives them the pleasant feeling of having “done good,” and it is better than good to attack those who do look and criticize.

The cry was always “you have to differentiate.” Now there is a party that does exactly that, and immediately it is attacked; its arguments are not heard. This shows that it was never about differentiating, but about censoring. Islam was long ago declared a sacred subject in this country by the Left. Indeed, they pursue the same goal: proceeding through overwhelming democracy and doing away with freedom, onward to a totalitarian ideology.

Even though fascism and communism lack the religious component, there is much common ground with the Islamic ideology.

It is easy for you leftists to criticize Christianity, but you are incapable of criticizing Islam. For you, any criticism of Islam — no matter how differentiated — is rightist extremism. Even clever people who have lived in Islamic countries, according to this logic, are “fishing in a brown swamp” [stumbling in the dark]. You have imposed an ideologically qualified thought ban on yourselves, and now demand that everyone else follow it to the letter. Your denunciations teach the citizen that Islam is untouchable, must not be criticized, and so we are back at the (Left’s) imposed thought ban.

Furthermore, the law which forbids criticism of Islam is called sharia, and is diametrically opposed to universal human rights — it is the absolute intolerance of dissidents and infidels, with the injunction to kill them, and with claims to world domination, anti-Semitism, murder of apostates, oppression of women, child abuse, and many other manifestations inherent to Islam which you find worthy of protection — so much so that critics must be denounced.

Sooner or later, you will have to explain clearly how you define rightist extremism and how you make that fit with our party program. Since when do right extremists demand direct democracy? Freedom of expression? A constitution decided upon by the people? Does it not rather sound like unadulterated democracy, to demand the independence of the media from party monies and the independence of parties from lobbyists’ money, because there is too great a danger that both of them will only be puppets of the money dispensers?

And our demand that the bad habit of financing the political caste with debts that will never be paid and thus gambling away our children’s future sounds more like upstanding representatives of the people, of whom there are too few in our political landscape.

But above all, since when have German rightist extremists been invited into the Israeli parliament, blessed by the representatives of the Knesset, and seen by countless Jews as the hope for their survival?

And how can a party be extreme-right when it has no extremists? Unlike you, Die Freiheit accepts no extremists, neither from the Right nor the Left. You know that you can never win a democratic debate in this way, so you avoid taking this stance.

The central problem, no doubt, is quite different. Direct democracy means giving the people more voice and consequently reducing the power of the established political parties. It is more than logical that Die Freiheit is a thorn in the side of the established parties and must be massively combated at the outset. That is how the retention of power has functioned for decades. That is why the SPD is immediately calling up its union troops.

The more intelligent of those on the Left know of course, that this is not a question of justice or human dignity, for these things languish most in leftist ruling systems, and only serve as deception. It is about moving an entire people to Socialism. For this purpose, mature structures must first be destroyed so that a new system can be built on the ruins.

The Nazis contributed to destroying the political landscape of the Weimar Republic. We know the ghastly results. But immediately thereafter the next Socialism carried on. The SED [Socialist Unity Party of Germany] regime also ruthlessly persecuted dissidents, declared them insane, and locked them up. As in National Socialism, the state intervened massively in the private sphere of the citizen in even the most perverse way: in his thoughts. Anyone who wanted to flee this dictatorship was shot. And we find this pattern everywhere where Socialism has been, and is, attempted.

From the start, your leftist ideology is false. Human beings are not alike. They are of equal value from birth on, but not homogeneous. That is our nature and it is good the way it is. Every attempt to force this multiplicity into a prepared mould cannot be accomplished and maintained without totalitarian oppression and state-sponsored terror. Anyone who wants to make all human beings alike must reduce them to the lowest common denominator and trim off whatever extrudes. What remains is a zombie-like shell, robbed of everything that makes us real. And all that simply for the sake of an ideology.

Our opinion is different from yours in many ways, and we are betting that in the end our convictions will touch more voters than yours. But we leave you your convictions — will never threaten or intimidate you. We denounce no one, and it would never occur to us to use violence. On the contrary, we would even combat those who employed violence against you. And that is what distinguishes democrats from fascists.

As we said, the winner on January 11, 2011 was fascism; the loser was democracy.

Decide for yourself which side you are on!

Marc Doll and René Stadtkewitz
For the Board of the Citizens’ Rights Party Die Freiheit