“Islam means peace” vs. “Islam is the greatest threat to the free world”. Between these two extremes a hot debate is developing for years, in which left and right wing, populists and scientists, do-gooders and racists place their arguments. Thorsten Gerald Schneiders, a German Islam and political scientist, made the honorable attempt to create clarification with the book project “Glorification of Islam versus Emnityof Islam”. And he failed in a splendid way.

End of 2009 the first volume was published under the title of “Emnity of Islam. If the limits of criticism become blurred.” On nearly 500 pages mainly scientists analyze historical and current, institutional and personal hostility towards Islam. Without exception, all authors refuse the criticism of Islam – if it is not limited to theological arguments. For them, any rejection of the ideology of Islam or Muslims means racism and xenophobia.

Of course, the editors found here well-known representatives, whether this is Kai Hafez, Siegfried Jäger and Sabine Schiffer with their studies about the picture of Islam in the media and the Internet, or, for example, Jürgen Leibold from a research project on “group-focused misanthropy” and his contributions on Islamophobia. The core argument, which underlies all of these contributions is, that one could not speak in such a general way about Islam and Muslims, not that shortened and simplified. However, this would correspond to the processes of prejudice and stereotyping, the construction of bogeyman’s and ultimately racism. Last not least, such an argument serves the devaluation of the alien and the superelevation of oneself, the authors argue.

Most authors misdo in three ways, caused by their XXX: First, no one dares even to undertake consideration, that for example the negative reporting about Islam has something to do with the social reality. Or that the ideological system of this religion perhaps could be the cause of the many problems, which is, actually, proofed by integration studies, migration reports and crime statistics every day. Instead, reference is made to alleged socioeconomic factors, again without asking for their causes.

The second error results from the political and ideological self-conception of the authors. Thus, some contributors consider it already questionable, if the host society calls Muslim migrants calls to adapt to the local social system and to acknowledge our legal system. The idea, that we as a host society have the right to make rules, is for some of the authors already racism. As with the first misconception, they are not willing to make an evaluative distinction between cultures.

Third, is a mistake that probably comes from the constant analysis of the prejudices of others: Some of the researchers themselves generalize and draw such unscientific and irrelevant comparisons themselves that the reader’s hair stood on end. If today’s mosque protests are compared, without further comments, with the opponents of the synagogue about a century ago, this is neither scientific nor helpful in any way.

Ultimately, the book focuses on phenomena such as the website Politically Incorrect (PI-News), but which represents the ideologically right margin or the populist formation of the critical of Islam people in Germany. However, that is, as one would equal the German right-wing newspaper “Junge Freiheit” (young freedom) with the whole conservative scene. Large parts of those who comment critically on Islam and the integration of Muslims do this factual arguing and becoming ever better informed. Therefore, it makes no sense, to speak about enmity of Islam or even about Islamophobia, therefore unfounded fear or a general rejection of Islam. The focus of the book follows its title, so much so right, but is ultimately only about a small part of the Germans.

All the more interesting was the following second volume “Glorification of Islam. If the criticism is taboo”, published in spring 2010. Now, the other side would be addressed, those who glorify Islam would be criticized. But far from it! With the completely inappropriate title, instead, the contributions explore what an appropriate criticism of Islam could look like – according to the anthologist. Most authors therefore belong to the fields of Islamic and religious studies and the first ten items are purely theological treatises and source studies. There are quite substantial contributions, such as the credibility of the hadiths-tradition, to more recent biographies of Muhammad in relation to classical sources, and to reason in the question of faith context. Even a solid theological justification for the abolition of the Islamic headscarf is part of it.

But once the perspective turns to social science the quality decreases rapidly. Once again – as in the first volume – the authors seek strange and far-fetched arguments to suppress the one fact: among migrants Muslims are mainly, indeed almost exclusively, the ones, who provoke social evils. In his introduction, Anthologist Schneiders brings this even to the point, but without taking any consequence for the selection of its authors, or contributions from it:

“The situation of many Muslim citizens in Germany is not rosy. Educational deficits, unemployment, poor housing situations and so on lead to upbringing problems, limitations of the personal individuality [...] or high crime rates. Although this has nothing to do with Islam directly, but according to several studies in recent years, people with a Turkish or Arab family background in Germany are significantly affected or involved. Now, since most of them understand themselves primarily as Muslims [...], the situation is in fact after all a problem, which the believers – above all the religious dignitaries and officials – must pay attention.”

Altogether, the book project “glorification of Islam versus enmity of Islam” remains lackluster and has at most a documentary character. Contentwise, only a small part of the spectrum between multiculturalist leveling down and populist enmity is addressed. Moreover, the selection of authors is very one-sided, which leads to the fact, that the two anthologies don’t have any argumentative punch. This is really a pity, because there are such good arguments as well as interesting actors on all sides. Just remember the 2007-debate on “Islam in Europe”, published by the editor in chief of signandsight Thierry Chervel as a book. Or the current debate on Islam on the comparison of anti-Semitism and criticism of Islam.

Which kinds of criticism of religions in general and Islam in particular, are admissible, is one of the major issues at all – not only since the Muhammad cartoon crisis in 2006. But the two books published by Thorsten Gerald Schneiders offer only a limited insight into the topic. And while the anti-Semitism and prejudice researchers trying to reach the prerogative of interpretation in the discourse about criticism of Islam with more and more publications about Islamophobia and enmity of Islam, there are few books, such as soon published “enemy stereotype: criticism of Islam,” which offer a broad analysis of possible forms of critique.

So far, the two books are only published in German:

Thorsten Gerald Schneiders: Islamfeindlichkeit. Wenn die Grenzen der Kritik verschwimmen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften 2010, 483 pages, 49.95 Euro.

Thorsten Gerald Schneiders: Islamverherrlichung. Wenn die Kritik zum Tabu wird. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften 2010, 401 pages, 39.95 Euro.
(Please see also the German review at BuchTest.)

Also mentioned:

Thierry Chervel, Anja Seelinger (Hg.): Islam in Europa. Eine internationale Debatte, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp 2007, 227 Seiten, 10 Euro.
(This debate is online available in English at signandsight.com. For the German review of this book see BuchTest.)

Hartmut Krauss (Hg.): Feindbild Islamkritik. Wenn die Grenzen zur Verzerrung und Diffamierung überschritten werden. Osnabrück: Hintergrund Verlag 2010 (will be published in autumn).

By Felix Struening

“Islam is not just a belief, it is a way of life, a violent way of life.”, and “I believe that the subjection of women within Islam is the biggest obstacle to the integration and progress of Muslim communities in the West.” These are the two key messages of the probably best known critic of Islam, Ayaan Hirsi Ali. It is aimed not so much to the Muslims themselves, rather than to Western politicians and citizens. First, they have to understand the meaning of the gift of democracy and political freedom. And secondly, that it is Islam that threatens exactly this.

The oppression of women is genuinely Islamic

Three themes – sex, money and violence – are the crucial misunderstandings that would not be understood by Western multiculturalists, according to the author. Of course, the oppression of Muslim women is the biggest topic in the book, whether it be acting for honor killings, circumcision, forced marriage or general sexual availability and violence. “The code of honor and shame may be tribal and pre-Islamic in its origins, but it is now an integral part of the Islamic religion and culture.”

Muslims and the Welfare State

The second major issue, Ayaan Hirsi Ali talks about is the alimentation of migrants and refugees by the Western welfare states. As in Muslim cultures little nothing is taught about savings or economic households and women in Islamic countries does not have money at their disposal, Western social benefits and generous loans granted to hopeless debt. And while the migrants often support their families at home with the money received from the welfare states, one misses any responsibility to the sponsoring host society. “They were not questioned about their values, customs, practices, or their knowledge of Dutch customs and laws. […] But none of us had been citizens before, in the modern sense of citizenship. We had never felt a participatory loyalty to any government. We remained loyal to our bloodline.”

This excessive burden of the welfare of migrants from Islamic countries and their subsequent generations due to low participation in employment and high crime rates is proofed by recent studies. “But the multiculturalists belief that Somali clan culture should somehow be preserved, even when its products move to Western societies – is a recipe for social failure.”

Islam means submission

The third major issue on violence and the isolation of Muslim thinking leads to the actual accusation of the author of the Western do-gooders. The fundamental violence of Islam and the enormous impact of the religion on even seemingly moderate Muslims would still be underestimated. The principle of submission – the literal meaning of Islam – makes people dependent on authorities and prone to fundamentalism. Ayaan Hirsi Ali so damn the putative reformers of Islam, who tried in adapted versions of the Koran to mitigate the very violent passages: “What is striking about this tortuous struggle to reinterpret Muslim scripture is that none of these intelligent and well-meaning men and women reformers can live with the idea of rejecting altogether the troublesome parts of scripture. Thus, in their hands, Allah becomes a god of ambiguity rather than of clarity. From an articulate transmitter of Allah’s word, Muhammad is turned into someone who left behind an incoherent muddle of rules.”

Also, that most Muslims are seemingly moderate and don’t follow the precepts of the Koran every day, should not be misunderstood, says the author: “A moderate Muslim may not practice Islam in a way that a fundamentalist Muslim does – veiling for example, or refusing to shake a woman’s hand – but both the fundamentalists and the so-called moderates agree on the authenticity and the truthfulness and the value of Muslim Scripture.” Ultimately, Westerners have to make clear differences between cultures and have to appreciate them: “All human beings are equal, but all cultures and religions are not. [...] It is part of Muslim culture to oppress women and part of all tribal cultures to institutionalize patronage, nepotism, and corruption. The culture of the Western Enlightenment is better.”

There is a perspective

But Ayaan Hirsi Ali does not stop with this criticism, as do many other authors. “In this clash of civilizations the West needs to criticize the cultures of men of color too. We need to drop the ethos of relativist respect for non-Western religions and cultures if respect is simply a euphemism for appeasement. But we need to do more than criticize. We need – urgently – to offer an alternative message that is superior to the message of submission.” Some of these solutions she provides herself, most are about education and enlightenment of Muslim migrants. Only the call to the Christian counter-missionary work – because Christianity is now a peaceful religion – is not convincing at all. Here, the former representative of the strong and secular state drifts suddenly from previously publicized convictions.

From personal experience to the criticism of the system Islam

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not only popular worldwide because the Muslim fundamentalist Mohammed Bouyeri killed the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh on the street and pinned a death threat to her on the breast of the corpse. She also wrote the world’s autobiographical bestseller “Infidel”. There she described her way from Somalia into the free West, from Islam to the enlightened citizen. Her new book “Nomad” also carries strong autobiographical elements, but while the reading turns out as an argumentative and powerful essay against Islam. Hence, the subtitle of the English translation fits very well: “A Personal Journey Through the clash of Civilizations.”

Critics accuse the critic of Islam as usual, that one cannot conclude from one’s own live on the public. But Ayaan Hirsi Ali wants to provoke own thought and to motivate to own actions. Therefore, emotions are simply the best. Studies that show what the author claims, however, are published already enough.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Nomade. A Personal Journey Through the clash of Civilizations. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010, 304 pages.

This is a translation of the German review at BuchTest.

Nearly monthly, new studies and books about the problems with the integration of Muslims in Germany and whole Europe are published. In France, Great Britain and the Netherlands the problems seem to be most obviously, but also in small Denmark. In the aftermath of the Mohammed-cartoon crisis, there have been some changes concerning Muslims in politics and public opinion. The German Review of Books talked to Nicolai Sennels, a psychologist who worked for several years with young criminal Muslims in a Copenhagen prison, about recent developments.

Mr. Sennels, since the publishing of your book “Among Criminal Muslims” in 2008 and our last interview, there have been some changes in the Danish integration policy. For instance, the Danish government just announced a tenfold increase in payments to encourage reverse migration. This is one of your main requests: paying Muslims, who are not willing to integrate, to return to their countries of origin.

It is clear that my book had an influence on the debate. Many politicians quoted my book, and it is clear that the book has contributed to a more free debate in Denmark. My experiences from extensive travelling throughout our continent, my lectures and of course international media, is, that Denmark is Europe’s tip of the spear when it comes to acknowledging the problems with Islam and Muslim immigration. Parties that talk openly about these problems are growing, and parties that don’t are close to extinction. Even the two biggest left wing parties agree – the Social Democracy Party and Socialistic Peoples Party – that they will not change the strict immigration laws that have been made by the Dansk Folkeparti.

Soon we will probably get a law that will kick immigrants out of Denmark if they block or interfere with police work. This law is crucial to regain secular control of Muslim-dominated areas. While the prospect of imprisonment does not seem to scare immigrants from committing serious and dangerous crimes, it seems that losing the chance to live in our country is the only thing that really scares them. This is also my own experience from working with criminal Muslims: The one thing they fear is being deported.

Unfortunately, the chiefs of the police are very much holding back their efforts in Muslim areas. They claim that they “do not want to throw gasoline on the fire.” In the short run, this may of course be a reasonable strategy, but it also means that Islamic laws and authorities become more powerful in these areas every day.
My experience from working psychologically with Muslims shows that the Muslim culture does not find it easy to be “equal.” Either you are over or you are under: You can be different and unequal, but you cannot be different and equal. The chiefs of the police and many politicians hope for some kind of “mutual acceptance,” but this is not possible in cultures developed under Islam.

Concerning these no-go-areas, even for the police, and the growing influence of the Islamic clerics, you recently wrote in your blog at Jyllands Posten about Muslim imams as a kind of Fourth Branch of Government.

Imams, Islamic priests, have a strong influence on their followers. For many Muslims the words of an imam are law – and for even more Muslims they are guidelines for lifestyle and political views. The power of Islamic authorities among Muslims is very often much more influential and respected than secular laws and norms.
Representatives for secular authorities are very often attacked in Muslim-dominated areas in Denmark and the rest of Europe. The police and politicians are not safe in these areas. Police get mocked, receive threats and are often attacked physically when entering Muslim areas. We recently had the tragic yet comical experience of seeing one of our most politically correct politicians, the mayor of integration in Copenhagen, Jakob Hougaard, being attacked by Muslims who tried to stone him and a journalist during an interview in the Muslim ghetto, Tingbjerg. The ironic thing is that Hougaard is “on their side,” claiming that there are no problems with violence in Tingbjerg and that Islam has nothing to do with terror and integration problems. Hougaard even promised in the Islamic magazine “Akhbar” to sponsor religious Islamic festivals if he got re-elected as mayor at the elections on November 17th, 2009 – which, by the way, he did not win.

Policemen and politicians are not the only ones who are attacked, stoned, etc. Ambulance drivers, firemen and even completely normal people who assist the elderly are also attacked. The problem they have with the people assisting the elderly is apparently that these people wear clothes that bear the logo of the state.

While things like this happen on a daily basis throughout Denmark, it is clear that “Muslim authorities” have completely other conditions when exerting influence on other Muslims. So called “father groups” consisting of mature Muslim men can patrol the streets of e.g. Muslim-dominated areas such as Nørrebro and Gellerup without getting attacked or mocked. They are respected and can walk around freely, telling tough Muslim criminals to behave, go to school, etc. There is of course also the example of the imams, who give their speeches every Friday. These speeches are not only religious, but also political. Approximately ten thousand Muslims in Denmark go to these speeches every week and get to know which political views are accepted, which reactions they should have to this or that, how to treat women, children, Non-Muslims, etc.

While non-Islamic authorities earn very little respect and are often even disrespected and attacked in Muslim-dominated areas, imams, heads of Muslim families, etc., have great power over a majority of Muslims in our Western countries. This power is uncontrollable and very often does not respect secular laws. For many Muslims, this power has a much greater authority than the three secular powers in our countries (legislative, executive and judiciary).

This fourth power enjoys a growing acceptance, especially among local politicians and the police. Local politicians in Copenhagen pay the Danish convert and imam, Abdul Wahid Pedersen, to write books on “real Islamic values” for Muslim children in our capital. Pedersen openly accepts the stoning of women and supports honour killings and vigilantes. In the name of dialogue, and because the local politicians have realized that they lack power in the Muslim community, they put Pedersen on the payroll.

In the same way, the police hire imams to calm Muslims when the police arrest Muslims suspected of being terrorists. This strategy might save the police some extra work in the short run, but affirming imams as official legal authorities by hiring them as shepherds to tell their flock to “calm down” is clearly the wrong approach.

In the European Elections in June 2009, Geert Wilders and his right-wing Populist Party became the second-strongest in the Netherlands. Is there a new anti-Muslim, anti-migration area emerging in Europe?

Absolutely! More and more Europeans have felt the impact of Islam and Muslim immigrations in their own lives. Danes are forced out of their neighbourhoods by Muslim dominance and criminals; more and more people have close friends or family who have been physically threatened or injured in connection with Muslims; more and more parents experience how Muslim children ruin their own children’s day in school, etc. Women have increasingly experienced that Muslim men are looking or treating them chauvinistically, and people are now seeing signs of civil war on TV and outside of their own kitchen windows.

The economic consequences are equally catastrophic. A Muslim coming to Denmark costs the Danish taxpayers 300,000 euros on average. Schools, hospitals, homes for the elderly, public salaries, etc. suffer tremendously due to this expenditure.

Almost everything that the critics of Islam and Muslim integration warned about last century has become reality today. The only thing that has not yet happened is the emergence of a strong Islamic party. It is certain that this will also happen, but my own feeling is that the lack of sympathizers in the government will prevent the party from becoming too powerful; at least in Denmark. On the other side, I am sure that it is not necessary to have a strong Islamic party in order for Muslims to wreak havoc in our cities and destroy our social societies. It is also not necessary to have an Islamic party to create Muslim parallel societies that are beyond the reach of non-Islamic authorities. Actually, it seems that Denmark and other countries in Europe will have their own Gaza Strips. According to the cultural-psychological trait in Muslim culture – that different cultures and religions cannot be equal – these parallel societies will never be able to exist in harmony with their surroundings.

We also do not need an Islamic party to create periodic or permanent martial law in certain areas of Europe. The only thing we need for this is politically correct politicians, a fearful police force and normal, thinking individuals who don’t bother to write letters to the editors and talk openly about their views on Islam and criminal Muslims at their workplace, family dinners, etc.

Nicolai Sennels is the author of the Danish book “Among criminal Muslims. A psychologist’s experience from Copenhagen” published in 2008. It has been translated into English, French and Swedish. The author is a psychologist and has worked for the Copenhagen authorities for several years. From 2005 to 2008 he worked at the Sønderbro youth prison in Copenhagen.

You can read a former interview with Nicolai Sennels.

By Felix Struening

“Immigrants tend on average to be more poorly educated and more frequently unemployed and to participate less in public life than the native population.” This first finding of the study “Unutilised Potentials” of the “Berlin-Institute for Population and Development” is not surprising at all. Yet behind the unassuming title, figures are conceal that are that brisance and distinct; it is hard to beat. The study is the first one in Germany that compared the success of integration of migrant groups from different countries of origin. For critical observers, the fact that the Turks got the worst results is hardly surprising, but it is a slap in the face for the defenders of multiculturism in Germany.

Migrants integrate differently – depending on their country of origin

This distinction of the immigrants became possible due to the initial polling of the migrant’s country of origin in the 2005 micro census by the Federal Statistical Bureau, an annual survey of one percent of the population living in Germany. The derived data is also so innovative because previous studies on migration only included foreigners. In the meantime, however, half of the 15 million migrants and their offspring living here have German citizenship “without thereby necessarily the integration problems are resolved.” This is 20 percent of the local population, which means Germany has a larger migrant population than any other European country. Given demographic trends, this proportion will increase even more in the future.

For a reasonable description, the immigrants were divided into eight regions or groupings: ethnic German immigrants (from the former Soviet Union, so called “Aussiedler”), Turkey, Southern Europe (Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain), other countries of the EU-25, the former Yugoslavia, Far East, Middle East and Africa. Thereby, undifferentiated data arise primarily in the regions from which two types of refugees migrated, respectively asylum applicants and – in contrast – highly qualified professionals, since the micro census does not specify the legal status for privacy reasons. Here, the editors of the study can only propose the very different integration achievements within each group of migrants and make presumptions based on the figures of the asylum applications from the interior ministry.

The question is why Afghanistan and Pakistan were included in the group “Far East” instead of “Middle East.” Here, the cultural background should be considered as more important than the geographical location. This leads to slightly unclear results of the Far East group. Therefore, very regrettably, one cannot see the values of each country, not even in the Annex.

Index for measuring integration

In order to investigate the different immigrant groups in terms of their integration, the experts of the Berlin-Institute developed an index for measuring integration (IMI). 15 indicators in the areas of assimilation, education levels, employment and financial backup address very different areas of life and should also be as independent as possible from each other. On the basis of five indicators, the immigrants and their next generation are compared dynamically, because the real success of integration is only measurable by the people born in the migrant country.

Generally, in all eight groups of migrants, there is a broad spectrum of integration success, but “migrants with a Turkish background tend by far to be the most poorly integrated group in Germany.” This is in spite of the fact that the Turks have already been in Germany for a long time, and half of them were born there. For example, the high unemployment rate also exists in the second generation and the level of educational has only subtly improved. With nearly one third without any education, the group of Turks is the least educated among all migrants.

The need for political action

The study is not only explosive in its findings, but also well presented. A little history of immigration into Germany since World War II and the presentation of the basic proportions of migrants in Germany provide an appropriate introduction. The statistical data are presented graphically and colour-coded, thus very easy to understand. Only the absence of the respective percentages in the bar and pie charts could be criticised. Due to the explanation of individual values and concepts, the study is also understandable for non-experts.

The well-documented index for measuring integration contains figures that should not only determine the current immigration policy, but also be included in every higher-education institution as a “must-read.” The different treatment of integration-willing migrants and those who live at the expense of the welfare state of the host society and isolate themselves from this society, must ultimately be a political reality. This study clearly indicates – without mentioning it explicitly, however – that migrants from countries with a strong Islamic influence integrate into German society much more poorly than migrants from non-Islamic countries. Additionally, the study also shows that how well migrates integrate depends mainly on the efforts of the migrants themselves.

In addition to the mentioned topics, the study also examines how well integration in different regions and cities in Germany functioned. It concludes with a chapter on the potential costs of failed integration. Here, however, the authors note that the available studies, such as of the Bertelsmann Foundation from 2008, result in very different figures due to different calculation models. But what they all have in common is that the lack of integration costs the host society a hell of a lot.

The blame for this can be given to the previous multicultural policy: “The vision of a multicultural society in which each ethnic group should be unaffected act out their character, never allowed real integration, but rather strengthened the live in those parallel societies, in which the lower classes of the cities mass.” For the researchers at the Berlin-Institute this means primarily “unutilised potential.” Therefore, probably the unassuming title of the study “On the current state of integration in Germany.”

Franziska Woellert, Steffen Kröhnert, Lilli Sippel, Reiner Klingholz: Unutilised Potentials. On the Current State of Integration in Germany, Berlin Institute for Population and Development, 2009.

The study is only published in German (PDF), but there is a English summary (PDF) and an abstract as well.

This review is a translation of the German review at BuchTest.

“Who is left, lives in the beautiful awareness, to be in the right, yes, simply to be allways right. In Germany, leftists don’t have to justify their view.” This general absolution of any (mis-)behavior is because of the missing of conservatives in all places where cultural and social decisions are made. “Go into any theater, a museum or an open-air: You will soon discover that ideas outside the leftist imagination, have no place in there. [...] The left won a comprehensive victory, it has become the Juste Milieu of those people, who define our culture.”

As such, one could summarize the essence of the current bestseller “Among Lefitsts” (Unter Linken) by the journalist Jan Fleischhauer (see the interview), an editor of the German magazine “Der Spiegel”. Even growing up in a through and through leftwing family, he became “conservative by accident”, as the subtitle of the book proclaims. At 350 narrow printed pages the author describes in a polemical and entertaining way, why the left is such mighty and why thus so much went wrong, in German politics.

The left is thereby opposed not only by conservatives, but by capitalism at the same time. Whereas the current financial crisis seems to prove the left to be right, at a second glance “capitalism is right to boast to redeem its promises exemplary. With socialism, it is regularly the other way round. It can not hold any of its promises, in fact, it went wrong every time, when its supporters were trying to implement bold ideas into reality.” Whereas after the socialist experiments everything is in ruins, capitalism is followed by democracy, prosperity and freedom. Crises like the present, are just normal, as Jan Fleischhauer somewhat laconically holds.

“At the beginning of all left politics stands the victim.”

The victim is the spritual food of the leftists, they can ignite and invent themselfs with it again and again, pointing out to real and perceived discriminations. The victim discourse thereby has a massive problem which even the left can not escape: If the victim status or the revolutionary anti-stance reversed, because the equality of the victim is reached or the left comes to power, new justifications for their own thinking and action need to be found.

By saving the whole nation, another problem of the leftists appears: the people, unfortunately, never do what the left intelligentsia have planed for them – but never for themselves. Really shameful Jan Fleischhauer recalls how the left-wing intellectuals – led by the appeasement author Günter Grass – rejected the German reunification, because the GDR was such a nice socialist experiment in a nice and safe glass box behind the Iron Curtain.

That the citizens of East Germany wanted capitalistic and political freedoms the West German left didn’t like at all. That the citizens of the GDR just took these freedoms and were welcomed by the Kohl government with open arms, was even worse. “It is every time a bitter experience for a movement that understands itself as an advocate of those at the bottom against the high society.”

Anti-Semitism and Turks

Anti-Semitism, the Holocaust and the guilt of the Germans are the other argumentative weapon of the leftists. It is especially likely used when it comes to issues of integration of foreigners, especially Muslims, Turks, respectively. Jan Fleischhauer, participants of the German Islam Conference (DIK), exemplifies at this event, as the supposed dialogue with the Muslims takes place: “You have to imagine the Islam Conference as a long therapy session, where every member of an ethnic minority in Germany describes the injustice that befalls or may befalls it. The dialogue is to assure each other how disadvantaged foreigners are in Germany.” The representatives of the German majority society better shut up.

But nobody considers, that Germany does as much for its immigrants, as probably no other country worldwide. The German welfare system already helps when somebody just got a residence permit in full measure, in return, nothing is demaned.

In the following the authors lists up the full horror of failed integration: lousy school education, even less professional qualification and a correspondingly heavy burden of the welfare system due to high unemployment among Muslim migrants are only some of the facts. The integration failed therefore primarily because of the appeasement policy and the multiculturalism of the German leftists. They would never call immigrants for accepting or even embracing our values. The exploitation of the Holocaust used here again and again, the author aptly calls the a “particularly aggressive variant of the victim discourse.”

Left vs. Right?

Several critics accused Jan Fleischhauer to use an outdated right-left scheme and to leave the post-ideological generations – probably the post 1968 generations – out. But Jan Fleischhauer doesn’t want to talk about political cleavages, but rather about how a generation has dominated our political-social image –with leftist ideology.

The conceptual vagueness to write about THE left, one can accuse January Fleischhauer, of course. But he said in the beginning of the book, to be aware of this haziness and generalization, but to use it in order to maintain intelligibility. The Left for him is “a philosophy of life, also a way of explaining the world, [...] and above all a feeling.” The Left has an “impressive theory” and is at the same time a “fiction”.

Thereby it is not that important, if the described people are clearly on the left, or rather communist or socialist. Instead, the author describes an attitude towards life in many different facets, which has enormous societal impacts. To be left, is for Jan Fleischhauer a dogma, which characterizes the appeasement politician, the multiculturalist, who is not ready, to hold his values above others. At the same time the described leftists are deeply fundamentalist. Left-wing is thereby less different from the right, as both sides often follow the same mechanisms. Left may be more the opposite of conservative, a distinction that meanwhile can be hardly drawn in the German political landscape.

A great Analysis

From an outside perspective on Germany the conservative view of the author is probably not that surprising. Regarding Islam and integration, for instance, Christopher Caldwell (“Reflections on the Revolution in Europe”) just shown an American picture of Europe, including Germany, that is beyond any left-wing political correctness. But German political books are often biased by the left cultural self-perception. Hence “Among Leftists” is a worth reading book on Germanys polical situation even for foreigners.

Jan Fleischhauer not only consideres the current situation, as many political books of the German super election year 2009 do (as you can see in this review). He also focuses not on a too simplistic “those on top are to blame” or the German party system. Rather, he gives a broader view, which stretches from the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau through Marx to the 1968-generation and its current positions of power.

The author doesn’t develop the satirical diction of Henryk M. Broder (“Hurray, we surrender!”). But his strength, however, lies in his philosophical erudition, in his many years of journalistic experience, and last not least in his political foresight. Perhaps not every argument may be consistent and perhaps some things are a bit far-fetched. But in its entirety, “Among Leftists” is a brilliant picture of our political situation. The leftists won’t like that, of course.

Please also note the interview with Jan Fleischhauer.

This review is a shortened translation of the German one at BuchTest.

By Felix Struening

The current geopolitical situation is characterized by a resurgence of the former great powers. The concept of the – mainly European and American – democracy is called into question by the successes of the autocratic regimes like China and Russia. Robert Kagan, foreign policy adviser to Republican presidential candidate John McCain in 2008, already started in 2003 a broad discussion with his book “Of Paradise and Power. America and Europe in the New World Order”. Now he presents with “The Return of History” an essay that deals intensively with the conflict between democracy and autocracy. Thereby, he questiones the legitimacy of the hegemony of the United States as well as the domination of the democratic model itself.

The end of the political primacy

On the basis of the three paradigms of the diplomatic and political influence, military strength and above all the economic power, the author analyzes the countries Russia, China, Japan, India and Iran regarding their hegemony demands. He shows that the faith in political opening through economic recovery turned out to be false and how the primacy of politics over economy gets lost step by step. “Growing national wealth and autocracy have proven compatible. Autocrats learn and adjust. The Russian and Chinese autocracies have figured out how one can authorize a free market economy and simultaneously suppressing political activity. They have understood that people who make money, stay out of politics, especially when they know that an intervention will let them suffer.”

While the resurgence of the great powers and the conflict between democracies and autocracies seems to be problematic for the author, he sees no long-term problem in the global Islamism. Although these tendencies must be clearly countered at the political level, Islamism will be defeated by modernity, because of Islam’s backward-looking focus on its tradition. Correspondingly short, it is only the topic on a few pages. Similarly tight is the chapter on the hegemony of Iran, which leads to the conclusion, that Robert Kagan sees in the Islamic Republic only little danger.

Is democracy an end-of-range model?

In the political debate the discussion of a possible end of democracy increases. Above all, Colin Crouch developed in “Post Democracy” a concept, that sees democracy influenced by other factors, particularly the expansion of the capitalistic principle of proftablility to non-economic areas. But this implicitly still assumes that democracy is the right form of society and its disappearance a negative trend.

Robert Kagan now carefully dares to take a more open perspective, and, given the political reality to question democracy as such. Between the lines of his book you can read the question of whether democracy is not only a Eurocentric and U.S. policy model. From the perspective of China and Russia are the American democratization efforts in the former Soviet states, the Balkans and the Middle East, first of all U.S. expansionism in their own areas of hegemony. The great powers suddenly identify the interference in the politics of other countries illegal, because it contradicts their own interests. “This is one of the great schisms in the international system, which divide the democratic world and the autocracies. For three centuries was the law of nations, which regarded any interference in the internal affairs of other nations as inadmissible, but rather on the side of autocracies. Now the democratic world is about to reverse this protection, while autocracies will rush to defend the principle of the inviolability of national sovereignty.” One of the examples of Kagan, is the NATO-led overthrow of Serbia, Russia tried to prevent.

In general, the author here touches on a moral paradox of the democratic social order, which is difficult to solve. To get or preserve democracy and its value system, undemocratic means are often necessary. Regarding foreign affairs, this usually means the use of military force, on the domestic front, the demarcation between freedom of the citizens and security of the state. Here it can be difficult to deal with individuals or groups who see their own values higher than the system of democratic principles. Tolerance and freedom the democratic state can only grant those social and religious groups who practice this principle of freedom also internal.

In the foreign affairs the liberal creed, that every person ascribes equal rights, which may be curtailed by any state, legitimates democracies, to interfere politically, economically and – if needed – militarily in the internal affairs of other states. But this is just under the premise that only democracies get these rights. Thus we Europeans and the Americans put democracy above of all other forms of government. But countries such as Russia or China, see democracy mere as one of the possible forms of government, and for nationalistic reasons they prefer autocracy. And even if these two great powers pursue not an ideological dissemination of autocracy, they offer protection and support to other autocracies. Whether this is now China’s influence in Africa and Asia, or particularly Russias patronage of the Islamic regime in Iran. With the growing economic power of Russia and China, the West has not only lost its monopoly of globalization, the two autocracies also ideologically become more role models.

Democracy in the empirical and normative comparison

The book is not especially innovative in its presentation of the political conditions, let alone that it creates new facts. His introductory narration of historical facts shows the generous, in global politics experienced storyteller, allowing also the political laymen to understand the following discussion. Robert Kagan is fundamental – despite his normative affirmation of democratic values – in his questioning of even these values because of the current geopolitical situation. This provides an approach that deprives democracy of its formal sanctity, then historicizes it and forces it into an empirical comparison with other forms of government. The question appears, if we can expect a country to democratize, if the autocracy is working well for the national interests, notably the economy and is accepted by most of the population, because of rising living standards?

Of course, normatively one wants to answer this question in the affirmative. But empirically, other factors must be considered. Thus, the mostly from outside established democratic elections in the Middle East and the states of North Africa, almost always led to a rise of Islamic fundamentalists. The last time this became clear in the electoral victory of the radical Islamic Hamas in the Palestinian autonomous areas. So, should the United States and other democracies encourage democratization in the Middle East? Robert Kagan sees the answer in turning around the question: “Should the U.S. support autocratic governments in the Middle East? This is, after all the alternative. There is no neutral stance on these issues.” That what we call a Realpolitik, the cooperation with autocracies, is therefore certainly needed. But we always have to apply pressure toward democratization and liberalization, states the author.

But we should consider in the juxtaposition of democratic and autocratic regimes even more circumstances. From a historical perspective, the forms of government of the great powers always have been role models. Whether this was the fascist nationalism in its expression of the German Empire, the communism of the Soviet Union or the current autocracies in China and Russia. They always have been and will be emulated by smaller or in world politics less important countries in order to obtain the support of the big ones. Whether the European democracies and the wave of democratization in the 1990s, are just a temporary model in a continuous timeline, or whether democracy is the most advanced form of government and thus the ultimate level of political participation and decision-making, is the crucial question.

“The great fallacy of our times is the belief that a liberal international order is based on the triumph of ideas and on the natural unfolding of human progress.” progress is neither inevitable, as the natural democratization of all countries. The examples of Russia and China show that rising wealth is not necessarily associated with political freedom.

Must we thus deny the ideological – or rather moral – superiority of democracy and see it therefore justified in geopolitical competition with the autocracies? Then of course we also have to criticize the hegemony of the United States, which brings us back to the question at the beginning. The alternative, a multipolar world order, also appears fair from a democratic perspective, however, involves much more danger. “A large part of the world tolerats the geopolitical preeminence of the United States not only, but they willingly support – not because people love America, but because they know that the U.S. will protect them against enemies who are more worrying.” Most countries should therefore prefer the compromise of the superpower United States. For its withdrawal would only shift the power to other interested parties.

Robert Kagan: The Return of History and the End of Dreams, Knopf 2008, ISBN-13: 978-0307269232, 19.95 $ (14.99 €); German translation: Die Demokratie und ihre Feinde. Wer gestaltet die neue Weltordnung?, Siedler, 2008, ISBN-13: 9783886808908, 16.95 €

This review is a tranlation of the German one at BuchTest, therefore the quotes are back-translations from the German book and not necessary identical with the original.

Jan Fleischhauer is a well known editor of the German magazine “Der Spiegel”. In 2009, he published one of the most disputatious books regarding the political situation in Germany over the last 40 years. “Among Leftists” (Unter Linken) immediately entered the bestseller list but was attacked at the same time by many critics. We spoke with the author about the actuality of the left-right schema, German students and Henryk M. Broder.

Mr. Fleischhauer, your book “Among Leftists” (Unter Linken) hits the (conservative) nail on the head. Why didn’t you write this book earlier? Was it previously not possible?

No idea. I had just reached a point where I felt the necessary power. It takes a certain basic energy to get over the distance of 350 pages, especially if one does something in addition to regular work. This energy was only here now.

You were immediately attacked by some critics, such as in fact more conservative FAS (Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung) by Julia Encke. Did you expect that?

This was foreseeable. It was surprising to me that the first fundamental assault was carried out by the FAS. But at second glance it was not that amazing. The arts section of the FAS is a reliable bastion of the left thinking in Germany. The editors who work here go to work each day with a clenched fist and the settled conviction to give Volker Zastrow, who directs the policy section, and all the other conservatives a wipe out
at every possible opportunity.

I was the perfect object of hate. On the other hand: Did the criticism hurt? Absolutely not. It has promoted the debate, and that was good.

The critics often argue, that the left-right-schema is out of date. Must we now think in different and more complex schemes?

That’s what I hear, since I write about politics. But strangely: Just the two camps were re-elected in Germany by the voters quite impressive. It even speaks some evidence that we go after the end of the grand coalition, which has here led to some confusion, again in a time of clearer ideological differences.

Why are today still (almost) all the students leftists and select the party Die Linke?

All students? It is not that bad. In economics, law or science, the share does not exceed the socially acceptable cut, I would suspect. But for the humanities, the assumption is certainly correct. The reason is less rational rather than emotional. One would like be on the right side, stand for the good and noble, therefore the left seems to be the right choice. The promise of moral superiority is always something seductive.

How might a conservative cultural-politics-intelligentsia look like?

For this I lack imagination. Nor do I belive in intellectuals who gather under one flag. People who think similarly, will find each other, so I don’t worry. And if you remain in the minority it is also not bad.

You say that your book is a very personal one and the subtitle gives the impression of an autobiography. But isn’t “Among Leftists” rather the biography of an entire nation after the 2nd World War?

Well, maybe not of an entire nation, but of a generation with certainty. I did not stop at the sixty-eight-generation as do many who criticize the left, but I take the reader to a journey through the past 40 years of leftist mentality, history, enclosing the German Autumn (Deutscher Herbst) and the strange enthusiasm for the RAF, the nuclear death hysteria of the eighties and the New Inwardness (Neue Innerlichkeit*), the minority debates until the present time. This recognition effect is evidently also a part of success.

In a televised debate one of the presenters described the book as “a politically Generation Golf,” which is not so wrong regarding the biographical parts.

Henryk M. Broder said, that he would liked to have written your book. Instead he has written the book on Islam (“Hooray, we surrender”), you probably wanted to write. What have you both in common in your function as authors?

The fun of polemical pointed emphasis, a joy on the free thinking – and a certain fearlessness, perhaps. You should not be too sensitive when you point out your politically opinion that clear, as we both do it. Broder describes himself still as a leftist, but that is of course only a very nasty volte-face.

About which topic you’ll write your next book?

We will see. I have one or two ideas, but for now I take a rest. A few readers have encouraged me to write the next book about the conservatives. I do not know if I should do to you is: A book on the rightists would not be much more lenient than that now on the left, I fear.

—
* The New Inwardness (Neue Innerlichkeit), also New Subjectivity is a term invented by the literature critic Marcel Reich-Ranicki to describe a kind of German literature in the 1970s, which is characterized by personal experiences. It was a countermovement to the political literature of 1968.

So far, the book is only published in German:

This interview is a translation of the German version at BuchTest.

The year 2009 was a super election year in Germany. A total of 17 elections were held, including the election of the European Parliament and the German Federal President. The most important were of course the parliamentary elections (for the Bundestag). The newly-elected conservative-liberal government will be observed with great excitement: will there be changes, after four years of the grand coalition, which certainly had had the necessary majority of votes in parliament to effect change but ultimately lacked the will to do so. All this has led to political apathy; voter-turnout in 2009 was the lowest it has ever been.

Election campaigns, TV and Internet

The election campaign in Germany was full of boredom, the two catch-all parties CDU and SPD were far too sure of their victory, which paid at least the latter with the change on the bench of the opposition. The message of the SPD candidate Wolfgang Thierse for example was limited to the phrase, that one should vote his party. Why, he never explained. Specific intellectual pretension put the CDU/CSU to their voters. “If You want Merkel, you have to vote CDU”, is emblazoned on the posters just before the election day. Well, who would have thought, she is the chancellor candidate of the CDU.

The policy debates on television provoked only weary yawn, especially the TV duel between the two chancellor candidates. In the Internet there were the first real online election campaigns (especially the use of social media by the CDU!) and blogs of all coleurs made their comments in varying quality.

But even in the good old media book, many journalists, political scientists and the politicians themselves, of course, explain why who votes whom and in particular why the Germans do not want to go to the polls.

Many of the authors here show a great strength in the analysis of the political situation in Germany. But it is not too difficult to determine that, given disenchantment with politics, non-voters and party state, that there have to be some changes. Only in a few books, however, are constructive suggestions for improvements. This may be due to the deadlocked situation, and due to the fact that many of the authors are still extremely limited on the here and now.

Vote invalid?

A common pattern is pure scapegoating upwards. For example, the book “Let’s get Policy Back to Us” (Wir holen uns die Politik zurück) by the journalist Axel Brüggemann. He makes the mistake of not seeing politicians as normal people, but as something apparently different. But how does one becomes a politician, he does not explain. Brueggemann also fails to note that we probably get the government we deserve. The call for a German “Yes we can” also fades so unheard, because Merkel and Steinmeier are just sober politicians of a “realpolitik”. Leaving aside the fact that German politicians who want to lead Germany to world power, should also be seen internationally probably very critical.

Entangled in his argument, Axel Brueggemann himself repeats intellectual thought bubbles, emphasizes all too obvious but doesn’t answer the crucial question: Why is all this? The view of the current situation, thereby suppressing how good it is here in Germany, actually, how quickly democracy was introduced after World War II and how quickly the former GDR after reunification became part of the whole. Democracy has brought Germany above all, safety, freedom and prosperity. The final request of the author, to vote invalid in the general election, to show political displeasure, it must therefore be described as totally inappropriate.

Not to go to the polls?

Similarly, Gabor Steingarts “The Stolen Democracy” (Die gestohlene Demokratie) works, which he had originally published under the less sensational title “The question of power” (Die Machtfrage). The parties had been given too much power and democracy is no longer guided by political ideas, but by personal interests, argues the author. Since politicians like Willy Brandt in Germany belonged to the past and nowadays politicians are more like “political engineers” who do their job without enthusiasm, one would have no other choice than to choose not to go to the polls.

Furthermore, Gabor Steingart not only critizes the behavior of politicians, but the German proportional representation itself. The coalition of parties is arbitrary, as when the leftwing party “Die Linke” would come into a government, even though 90 percent of Germans had not chosen it. Still, that is one of the key points of the German electoral system. Considering Gabor Steingarts political experience – highly visible in his detailed analysis of the parties – it is the more surprising that he calls to not go to the polls, to deprive the parties the mandate to govern, because that would lead to even more arbitrary coalitions.

Unlike many other writers the Spiegel correspondent makes specific proposals to improve, even if they do not necessarily likely to be effective, let alone implement. Moreover, one has to thank the author and his publisher: They have included the discussion of the readers, which was formed to the first edition of the book in the paperback edition. That is at least a democratic behavior.

Without Prospects

A deeper and more scientifically analysis is offered by Matthias Machnig and Joachim Raschke in the book “Where shall Germany end up?” (Wohin steuert Deutschland?). In 32 contributions journalists and scientists analyze the state of the nation, but miss to develope a clear picture in the entirety. The book reads like a very current spotlight on a Germany that stands helpless before elections in which citizens have apparently no real alternatives. Low voter turnout and the politicians who are caring little for the concerns of the people and given election promises, apparently, are the primary German problems.

What the book is silent on all these issues is the fact that populism arises in many other European countries if people are not satisfied with the politics, while there is in Germany “just” a falling voter turnout. Of course, populism also grows here, lieke the party “Die Linke” with their irrational and unworkable demands on the political left edge. But it is elected primarily by those who have already obtained before any aliment of the state, can thus only be lured by politicians with empty promises.

Ultimately, the analysis of the context, the discursive reference to each other and the joint plot is missing. The two arrows pointing in opposite directions on the book cover symbolize the book as well as the political situation: there are no prospects.

There are a lot more books concerning the German elections in 2009, but this selection gives a good insight. So far, the books were just published in German:

Matthias Machnig, Joachim Raschke (Hg.): Wohin steuert Deutschland?. Bundestagswahl 2009 – Ein Blick hinter die Kulissen, Hoffmann und Campe 2009, ISBN-13: 9783455501131, 19.95 € (full German book review)

By Felix Struening

“Can Europe be the same, with different people in it?”, aks the U.S. journalist Christopher Caldwell. His answer is a resounding and distinct “No”. The Muslim mass immigration during the past 50 years has already changed Europe a lot. By the year 2050, family reunion and the Muslim fertility rate will do the rest. European politicians previously overestimated the necessity of foreign workers and still don’t understand the cultue-shaping power of Islam. As a consequence, the welfare state will soon collapse, and the political changes will be far-reaching.

The end of the welfare state

To prove these statements, Christopher Caldwell introduces in the first part of his book in the history of the (Muslim) Immigration in Europe. He points to the fundamental mistakes of political elites: In the beginning Europe just needed workers. But when they decided to stay, they got their families to join them. This and for example the death of heavy industry meant that although the number of foreigners living in Germany from 3 million in 1971 increased to 7.5 million by the millennium, the number of foreigners working, however, remained stable at 2 million.

Later, Europe’s politicians have argued with the demographic change on immigration. But the United Nations (“Replacement Migration”) have even calculated, that more than 701 million immigrants would have come into Europe since 1960, to balance the superannuation of the population. This would be far more people than living here right now. Moreover, as Christopher Caldwell cited a Spanish study found that even a massive influx yields liitle, since most migrants working in low-wage sector, and also are getting old and will claim their pensions.

The understanding of Islam

The other two parts of “Reflections on the Revolution in Europe”, dealing with Islam as a religion, the Muslims and Europe’s weakness, to oppose the political religion. Christopher Caldwell points again and again on Islam itself, and the fact that the Europeans underestimate “the culture-shaping potential of religion.” He asks the question if Islam itself can be the source of the terrorism practiced in its name or whether its a misuse of the religion. There is little sense speaking of ‘moderate Muslims’ if there are no ‘unmoderates’, be it in a religious or political way. “[W]ithout an underlying belief that there is something especially dangerous about Islam, the term ‘moderate Muslim’ makes no sense.” At the same time, the author suggested that Western politicians, especially after terrorist attacks, acquit Islam because they know in their bones, that it just happened because of Islam. Why else should Westerners have to explain to Muslims what is their belief or not?

For Christopher Caldwell it is also the Muslim population itself, which prepares European problems. Fundamentalists disrupt the co-existence, although obvious, but in the long run the simple presence of growing Muslim populations will take their toll. Between political Islam (ie the Muslim Brotherhood) and jihadism (by al-Qaeda, etc.) the author does not, however, differentiate, which leads to blur his concept of Islam a bit. Here a differentiation makes sense, like Thomas Tartsch has suggested in the German book “Da’wa and Jihad”.

Europe’s lack of response

The author shatters in his analysis European ideals in a accurate and sustainable way, such as a European Islam that is compatible to democrazy and liberal. Islam had great times, but “it is in no sense Europe’s religion and it is in no sense Europe’s culture.” Europe is in competition with Islam concerning the loyalty of the immigrants, only that Islam has currently the best cards, at least in terms of demography. If many Muslims migrate to Europe, it means, they prefer life there, but it does not necessarily mean that they want the European culture too.

Measures to integrate showed mainly the weakness of the Europeans, not to ask about other cultures because of the felt guilt for World War II, the Holocaust and colonialism. The dialogue with Islam is often naive, like the Islam-Konferenz (Islamic Conference) initiated by the German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble.

The U.S. perspective

Christopher Caldwell writes from the perspective of an American journalist with a lot of European experience. He knows the European literature on Islam and immigration, he read Oriana Fallaci (“The Rage and the Pride,” “The Force of Reason”), as well as studies by the German Ministry of Interior (“Muslims in Germany”). His view from the outside seems to be non-dogmatic and distanced enough to light all facets of the immigration phenomena. The author always dicusses possible objections in order to disprove them afterwards thoroughly.

The book addresses very clear an American audience, because the author uses repeatedly comparisons to the developments in the United States to clarify what is happening similar, but above all, what works in Europe otherwise. At the same time, however, the work stands out for the European reader with clarity, even by political incorrectness to venture here, unfortunately, only a few authors. A journalist working up with scientific precision as that of Christopher Caldwell is found rather rare. There remains hope that “Reflections on the Revolution in Europe”, will be translated into German (and other languages) and won’t be limited to the English-speaking world such as Bat Ye’ors “Eurabia”.

Christopher Caldwell: Reflections on the Revolution in Europe. Immigration, Islam and the West, Penguin, 2009, ISBN-13: 9780713999365, 13.95 €

This is a translation of the German book review by the author at BuchTest.