European nationalists everywhere have been aghast at the ongoing flood of Africans and Muslims currently invading our Old Continent. Our Western politicians, far from seeking to contain this movement, have sought only to “organize” it. At the center of this has been German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who over many years has acquired a reputation as the tough-minded de facto leader of the European Union. Strangely, Merkel seems to reserve her rigor for fellow Germans and Europeans, never for the welfare-shopping foreign settlers. In this article, I would like to go over the recent decisions and statements of the German government, and contrast these with historical postwar attitudes towards non-European immigration. In short, I will present a decline in ethnic consciousness in German society, even at the highest levels of government, to the sorry condition of today.

During this crisis, politicians have been eager to signal their moral credentials in response to massively-publicized symbols, such as the tearful Palestinian girl who asked Merkel why she would be deported and the already-ubiquitous photo of child Aylan Kurdi, a child who drowned off the coast of Turkey. Less advertised are the victims of the foreign invasion, such as poor Germans evicted to make way for “asylum-seekers,” the non-consented imposition of a refugee camp in Dresden, or the rape of a seven-year-old little German girl by a “North-African-type” foreigner. The latter vicious crime was all the more symbolic in that the girl had been playing in a park dedicated “to the victims of fascism.” Nor was this an isolated incident. There have been other incidents of migrants raping European women. Allowing these migrants to settle in Germany is a moral catastrophe for the German people.

The policies of Brussels and Berlin are confused and chaotic — a mixture of temporizing, moral signaling, and ad hoc management of a very practical human problem which, whatever the moralistic exhortations, is overwhelming specific cities and localities. One day the Chancellor suggests that Germany will accept 800,000 asylum-seekers (equal to a full percent of the German population, but far younger and more fertile). Another day her Vice Chancellor, Sigmar Gabriel, tells German television that the country can indefinitely receive 500,000 “refugees” every year: “I believe we could surely deal with something in the order of half a million for several years. I have no doubt about that, maybe more.” A few days after that, Germany’s social service agencies find themselves so overwhelmed that the country even had to suspend the highly-treasured European Schengen Area of borderless free travel to reinstitute border checks in the face of the human tide.

There is no indication that German and EU leaders are even trying to contain this flood. European naval operations in the Mediterranean, in “saving” seafaring migrants and setting them on European soil, only encourage more. Western European leaders and EU officials have sought to shame Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán for building a border fence to enforce his nation’s immigration laws. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker is pushing a binding scheme to distribute 160,000 migrants across the EU under the absurd and self-evidently false slogan: “Everyone in Europe has been a refugee.”

Merkel has said that responding to the migration crisis could be “the next great European project,” by which she seems to mean that skeptical Central-Eastern Europeans will be browbeaten and bribed into accepting their “fair share” of welfare-users, ethno-cultural aliens, and potential rapists and terrorists. Our European nations could come together — rich and poor, east and west, north and south — to build up the defenses of our shared continent, to finance refugee camps abroad, to pressure the wealthy Israelis and Gulf Arabs to take in refugees, and finally to restore peace in the Middle East and cease to collaborate in American/Zionist aggression in the region. This would be a worthy cause, indeed a noble crusade, but there is no indication that Merkel means anything of the kind.

It is not as though the Europeans, still a brilliant constellation of great nations despite their current decadence, lack the know-how or ingenuity to stop population movements. The Munich-based industrial giant Airbus Defense and Space has built a $3.4 billion “900km state-of-the-art fence” for . . . Saudi Arabia. This barrier has proven extremely successful, with the wealthy Saudis accepting virtually none of their “Arab brothers” as refugees. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has offered to return the favor by offering to fund 200 mosques in Germany for the incoming migrants. It’s enough to drive one mad!

The details on the outcome of this crisis and Merkel’s muddled and suicidal management remain to be seen. But the Chancellor herself has spelled out the big picture: “What we are experiencing now is something that will occupy and change our country in coming years.”[1] Germany will be “changed.” Indeed, it will no longer be German and European, but increasingly African and Muslim. Indeed, Merkel has previously said that “Islam belongs to Germany.” No doubt Charles Martel is turning over in his grave. In effect, Merkel has accelerated the native Germans’ reduction to a vulnerable minority in their own ancient homeland. And, as the Social-Democratic economist Thilo Sarrazin has painstakingly documented,[2] this will mean a Germany with lower IQ, lower social cohesion, lower educational and economic performance, and higher welfare use.

In short, Merkel — the East German pastor’s daughter — is consciously organizing the accelerated destruction of the historical German nation. Alain Soral’s French nationalist website Égalité et Réconciliation condemned Germany’s statements as “high treason” and “programmed destruction.” It did not and does not have to be that way. Indeed, German leaders long took a more realistic and common sense approach to ethnicity and immigration.

After 1945: Ethnically conscious anti-Nazis

The ethno-national principle was perhaps most explicitly affirmed in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne which ratified the exchange of ethnic Greek and Turkish populations at the end of the First World War, ensuring the two nations would be as homogeneous as possible. Western leaders often promoted, where possible, the political and geographical separation of different ethnic groups into different states: One people, one country, one state, so to speak. This is a simple and time-tested recipe for promoting peace and reducing ethnic conflict.

It is striking to observe that the ethno-national principle was frequently adhered to even after the destruction of the Third Reich in 1945. Everywhere, the victors proclaimed the evils of National Socialism in selfishly and ruthlessly defending the ethnic interests of Germans. Yet the Allies were often similarly ruthless in their methods and aims. They ethnically-cleansed East Prussia, Silesia, and the Sudetenland of some 9 million Germans (perhaps 2 million dead), to make way for homogeneous Czech, Polish, and Russian territories. This was brutal and unjust for the victims, but it was also perfectly successful: There have been no serious ethnic conflicts in those territories since, there has been peace, whereas multinational Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union have fallen apart and many of their still-multiethnic territories are often still afflicted by tribal conflict.

The Jews in Israel — whose numbers had been swelled by Adolf Hitler’s agreement with the Zionists to send German Jews there and by the survivors of World War II — also adhered to the ethno-national principle, adopting a largely-racial definition of Israeli citizenship and Jewish identity, not so different from those of the Nuremberg Laws.[3] Tel Aviv passed Jews-only immigration and nationality laws specifically-designed to maintain a racially Jewish majority over the indigenous Arab population.

Finally, the postwar Federal Republic of Germany itself — what was then West Germany — also largely adhered to an ethnic conception of citizenship. Like Tel Aviv, the Bonn authorities promoted the immigration of co-ethnics, namely of the lost German communities in Eastern Europe, who had arrived there as settlers during the Drang nach Osten in the Middle Ages and survived the travails of the World Wars. These returning German communities abroad, no longer called Volksdeutch (folk-Germans) due to politically-incorrect association with the Nazis, but Aussiedler (repatriates), have proven easy to assimilate.

Indeed, Germany rejected birthright citizenship for the children of foreigners born in the country due to a strict adherence to jus sanguinis. As a result, the children of Turkish Gastarbeiter — “guest workers” short-sightedly brought in to provide low-wage labor to German businesses — were not entitled to citizenship.

Chancellor Schmidt: Continued opponent of non-European immigration

German leaders, up to the highest levels of the state, remained deeply-wary of non-European immigration up to the 1990s. Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, the Social-Democratic leader of the country between 1974 and 1982, repeatedly warned his compatriots of this problem. In his last year in office, he promised: “Not one more Turk will come over the border.” In 2000, the elder statesman warned against Turkey joining the European Union and against Islamic immigration because of the cultural differences. In 2004, Schmidt went further, saying that Turkish immigration to Germany had been a mistake. He argued that “multiculturalism is difficult to make fit in a democratic society” and that the resulting ethnic conflicts could only be managed by an authoritarian regime, citing Singapore as an example.

Most recently, in 2013, Schmidt (a sprightly 94 year-old despite his inevitable cigarette) explicitly differentiated between assimilable European immigration (which has strongly increased with the enlargement of the EU in Eastern Europe and the economic crisis in southern Europe) and non-assimilable Afro-Islamic immigration:

As regards Italy or Greece, there’s no problem. One day the Italians and the Greeks will go home or they’ll integrate into society in the course of time. That’s what we’ve seen for decades. The problem isn’t due to Italian, Greek, or Spanish immigration. The problem is due to immigration from foreign cultures, for example cultures marked by Islam. [. . .] There are no major differences between Italian civilization and French or German civilization. Turkish culture is very different, Algerian culture is very distinct too, Egyptian culture, the cultures of the eastern part of the Mediterranean are much more distant. [. . .] Free circulation within Europe isn’t dangerous. What’s dangerous is the mixing with foreign cultures, with the traditions of foreign cultures and civilizations.

Chancellor Kohl’s remigration proposal to halve the Turkish population in Germany

Schmidt was not the only one fearing the consequences of non-European immigration. His Christian-Democratic successor, Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who governed the Federal Republic between 1982 and 1998, was also greatly concerned. Kohl is a particularly significant figure, having been the architect of German Reunification and, with French President François Mitterrand, of the European Union.

In October 1982, the newly-elected Kohl informed British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of a top secret remigration plan to halve the Turkish population in Germany and reverse immigration flows, the kind of proposal which today could only be suggested in the far-right fringe of nationalist politics. According to declassified British documents:

Chancellor Kohl said [. . .] over the next four years, it would be necessary to reduce the number of Turks in Germany by 50 percent — but he could not say this publicly yet [. . .]. It was impossible for Germany to assimilate the Turks in their present numbers. [. . .] Germany had no problems with the Portuguese, the Italians, even the Southeast Asians, because these communities integrated well. But the Turks came from a very distinctive culture and did not integrate well. [. . .] Germany had integrated some 11 million Germans from East European countries. But they were European and therefore presented no problem.

High unemployment in Germany at the time and Turks’ propensity to black market work and forced marriages were just some of the problems cited. The Turkish population in Germany at the time numbered 1.5 million, which would have meant shipping back some 750,000, while the rest would have received special schooling to force assimilation.

In any event, Kohl settled for a more moderate scheme which enticed Gastarbeiter to return home through a 10,500-Mark lump sum (over $25,000) and a reimbursement of retirement contributions. About 100,000 Turks did indeed leave, but this was not enough to stem the tide of new arrivals of workers, “asylum” claimants, and their families.

Today, Kohl’s proposal is considered shocking in Germany, reflecting widespread cultural changes in German elite and popular culture. As Der Spiegel explains:

“Back then, the societal consensus in Germany was that Turks were guest workers and would have to go home,” Freiburg-based historian and author Ulrich Herbert told SPIEGEL ONLINE. And this wasn’t confined to right-leaning political parties like Kohl’s [Christian-Democrats], but rather “penetrated deep into the SPD,” he added, referring to the center-left Social Democratic Party.

It would be more accurate to say that German society, including the center-left, was still-imbued with traditional, adaptive, and indeed common sense views on ethnicity and culture. They had not yet been “penetrated” by blank-slatist and multiculturalist propaganda.

Kohl, unlike Schmidt, later changed his views, as the article notes:

In 1993 he went against many in his own party and came out in support of giving automatic German citizenship to third-generation “foreigners” — children born in Germany whose grandparents had immigrated. Immigrants contributed “enormously to the well-being of Germans” and helped secure their retirement, said the chancellor later in his career. In 2000, Kohl travelled to Istanbul to attend the wedding of his son Peter to a Turkish banker.

In passing, there may be no better way to undermine a ruling elite’s solidarity with its people than miscegenation, to increase genetic distance and to decrease relatedness. As the old saying goes: “Blood runs thicker than water.”

Germany’s traditional jus sanguinis would only be fully abolished in 1999 with a new nationality law passed under the opportunistic Social-Democratic Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and Green Vice Chancellor Joschka Fischer. The amiable, sleazy Schröder — who in retirement has pimped his services to Russia’s Gazprom and the Rothschild family’s investment bank among others — can be thought of us as a kind of German Bill Clinton. Fischer, a ’68er, has proven similarly unprincipled — going from an “anti-imperialist” student to a collaborator in the NATO war of aggression against Serbia in 1999 — and has supported the migrant invasion.

Go to Part 2.

[1] My emphasis. This statement could be compared to President Bill Clinton’s advocating in the 1990s the physical reduction of White Americans to minority status.

[2] Thilo Sarrazin, Deutschland shafft sich ab: Wie wir unser Land aufs Spiel setzen (Munich: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 2010). Still unavailable in English. Translated into French as L’Allemagne disparaît: Quand un pays se laisse mourir (Paris: Le Toucan, 2013).

[3] Hitler and the National Socialists can be faulted for insufficiently following the ethno-national principle, beginning with the unilateral annexation of Czech Bohemia. In addition to breaking his word and humiliating the peace camp in Great Britain and France, this was a pure and simple violation of the principle that each people should be governed by their own. (“Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer.”)