November 13, 2006

GERMANY'S FAR RIGHT

Berlin Mulls New Bid to Outlaw NPD

To the dismay of Germany's mainstream parties, the far-right NPD party has done well in the three years since a bid to have it outlawed failed. Now a second attempt is being considered, but it's doubtful whether the country will succeed in ridding itself of the fiercely anti-immigrant party.

Germany's Social Democrats are considering a second attempt to ban the far-right National Democratic Party three years after a previous bid failed because the government bungled its case at the Federal Constitutional Court.

Franz Müntefering, labor minister and vice-chancellor, told German television: "If the NPD can be banned, which needs to be checked, then I'm definitely for it." He said Germany also needed to work harder to discourage people from following the party in the first place.

Müntefering's Social Democrats are already looking at possible changes in the law to help build a case against the anti-immigrant NPD which has been voted into two eastern state parliaments in the last two years.

The NPD could not immediately be reached for comment. The party wants to evict foreigners, uses red, black and white banners that resemble those used in Hitler's Third Reich, and this year declared solidarity with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after he questioned the Holocaust and said Israel should be wiped off the map.

Following recent election wins the NPD's next big goal is to get into the federal parliament, the Bundestag, in the 2009 general election. Having the far right back in the Reichstag parliament building in the heart of Berlin would be a triumph for the NPD and deliver a stinging blow to Germany's image abroad.

The previous German government, backed by both houses of parliament, had sought to outlaw the party for allegedly stoking xenophobia. But the Federal Constitutional Court threw out the case because it contained testimony and speeches from NPD members who had received money from the domestic intelligence agency for passing on information about the party. The court ruled that evidence from paid informants was tainted.

The bungle embarrassed the government of then-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and was widely viewed as having strengthened the NPD, which went on to win enough votes to enter the state parliaments of Saxony in 2004 and Mecklenburg West-Pomerania last September, boosted by discontent with mainstream partners in the economically depressed east of the country.

Doubts about ban

Any ban is controversial even among mainstream parties where many believe a new case would be doomed to fail and would in any case make Germany's far-right scene harder to monitor by driving it underground.

Breaking off links between the domestic intelligence and informants in the NPD, which may be necessary to improve the chances of a ban, would rob authorities of access to information about the party, said Bavaria's Interior Minister Günther Beckstein. "What would we say when the court asked us what current information we have and we no longer had access to the inner circles?"

A number of other regional interior ministers agreed that outing their informants in the NPD would make it harder to combat Germany's far right.

The debate coincided with the NPD's first party conference in Berlin, which it calls the "Reich capital," at the weekend and follows the publication of a survey last week which indicated that xenophobic and far-right views were firmly anchored across German society.

One NPD policy proposal presented at the conference was headlined "The country needs German children" and said the "classic family" should remain the true bedrock of German society.

It proposes paying €500 for each German child and scrapping child benefits for immigrants. One campaign poster used by the party shows a group of Muslim women wearing headscarves and hauling large plastic bags through a German street under the slogan: "Have a Good Trip Home."

The conference ended with the 500 delegates and guests singing all three verses of the German national anthem, including the first and second verses which are no longer part of the official anthem and which start with the words: "Deutschland Über Alles" and "Deutsche Frauen, Deutsche Treue, deutscher Wein und deutscher Sang" (German women, German loyalty, German wine and German song).

The conference was overshadowed by financial trouble which could turn into a greater threat than any discussions about a new ban. Federal authorities are demanding the repayment of €863,000 in state funds paid out to the NPD in 1998 and 1999 because of irregularities in the way it accounted for private donations.

"We're going to have to tighten our belts," party chairman Udo Voigt told the conference, adding that there would be staff cutbacks. Unless the NPD finds wealthy backers it will have trouble funding its battle to enter the Reichstag in 2009. Wealthy publisher Gerhard Frey, head of an allied far-right party, the Deutsche Volksunion or "German People's Party", declined to comment on whether he would come to the NPD's rescue.

cro/SPIEGEL ONLINE/dpa/Reuters

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,448102,00.html

This is how democracy functions in Germany. Since the establishment parties cant stop the rise of nationalism in this country they simply want to ban the nationalist party. But since under the current constitutinal laws something like that seems impossible they will simply change the constitutional law adding another "exception paragraph" on it. Welcome in the banana Republic of Germany.

If they do a move like this. I have hope that the people will rise to such injustice. Let the German spirit reawaken!

Again the establishment pisses on the will of the people. The German "democracy" at its finest.

The same "democracy" which wants to ban the NPD as an "uncosntitutional and undemocratic" party and the same "democracy" which has put hundreds upon hundreds of German nationalists in jail because they dared to speak their mind freely.

Immigration | 02.01.2007

Local Protests Greet East Berlin's First Mosque

An Islamic group laid the foundation stone for east Berlin's first mosque on Tuesday amid protests reflecting Germany's difficulty in integrating its 3.2 million Muslims.

Scattered protests Tuesday accompanied a ground-breaking ceremony for the first-ever mosque in what used to be Communist East Berlin.

The two-story building with a 12-meter-tall minaret is being built for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community on the site of an old sauerkraut factory in the east Berlin suburb of Pankow-Heinersdorf.

The mosque, which will be able to accommodate 500 worshippers, is expected to be completed by the end of next year or in early 2008, said the chairman of the sect's Berlin branch, Abdul Basit Tariq.

Around 50 protesters were at the ceremony, some carrying placards reading, "No Mosque in Pankow."

"A place of worship -- be it a mosque, church or synagogue -- should be at the heart of a community," Joachim Swietlik, head of the campaign against the mosque, told news agency Reuters.

Police evicted three left-wing demonstrators after a scuffle over a placard in support of the mosque.

Sect considered peaceful

Residents of Pankow-Heinersdorf have been protesting for months against the planned mosque, arguing that the sect had no members living anywhere near the site. Some of those protests have been attended by members of the far right National Democratic Party (NPD).

Berlin authorities gave permission to build the mosque just before Christmas after a months-long battle with opponents.

The Muslim group said it had been looking to build a new mosque because it had outgrown its present community center in the west Berlin suburb of Reinickendorf.

The Ahmadiyya community was founded at the end of the 19th century in what was then British India. It claims to represent the latter day renaissance of Islam.

The sect, which is classed as peaceful by the German domestic intelligence service, has some 30,000 members and operates more than a dozen mosques in Germany. At the ceremony, members held up placards reading, "Islam means peace, Love for all."

Abdul Basit Tariq, chairman of the sect's Berlin chapter, said the mosque was being financed by the sect's women's organization and would bear the name Khadidja, after the first wife of the Prophet Mohammed.

Abdullah Uwe Wagishauer, head of Germany's Ahmdaiyya's, said he hoped for good ties between his community and opponents of the mosque.

"There are no difficulties with neighbors of Ahmadiyya mosques built elsewhere," he told Reuters. "Our mosques help interreligious dialogue and mutual understanding."

Mosques not new in Germany

Mosques are by no means a new development in Germany. As far back as the 16th century, Prussian king Frederick William I had the first mosque built in Potsdam for his Turkish soldiers.

In Berlin, the first mosque was constructed in 1924.

Now there are some 30 Muslim places of worship in the German capital. But most of them are in Neukölln and Kreuzberg, in the western part of the city.

These are the neighborhoods in which guest workers, mainly from Turkey, moved to when they first arrived in Germany in the 1960s and 1970s. Today the multi-ethnic districts are still home to Berlin's largest Turkish community as well as to large numbers of Arab and east European immigrants.

In the former Communist and, at the time, internationally insular East Berlin, there were no mosques which might explain the protests, Tariq says.

"These are unfounded fears," Tariq says. "People listen to the news, see scenes on television and that's why they're scared of Muslims. They think Muslims are terrorists and suicide bombers. Their heads are full of these things."

Opposition to the planned mosque has underlined Germany's problems in integrating its 3.2-million strong Muslim community. The problem is especially acute in formerly communist-ruled east Germany where few Muslims and other immigrants have settled.


DW staff (jb)

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2298465,00.html

EAST BERLIN'S FIRST MOSQUE

The Muslims Are Coming!

By Michael Scott Moore and Jochen-Martin Gutsch in Berlin

A citizens' group in Berlin turned out this week for a candlelight vigil to protest plans for a new mosque in their neighborhood. It will be the first to be built in the former East Berlin, where almost no Muslims live -- but no one can quite explain why it shouldn't be there.

At the end of a rundown suburban street lined with bare trees and flaking apartment facades, a small group of people hold candles or colored Glo-sticks. A few hold signs -- "Democracy yes! Caliphate no!" -- and some carry German flags.

"The mosque is supposed to go up right here," says Günter Bronner, a blustery white-haired man with glasses pushed up on his forehead who's lived in the neighborhood for 42 years. He points to a drab piece of land at the end of the street where a defunct sauerkraut factory stands. "They want to have a minaret with a muezzin who gives the call to prayer five times a day. Can you imagine? Five times a day over our rooftops."

Officials gave the go-ahead last Friday for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association to build a new mosque in Heinersdorf, an eastern neighborhood of Berlin where very few Muslims live. It will be the first mosque on the once-Communist eastern side of the city, and an organization of locals turned out Wednesday to protest. "It was pretty brazen to hand this (approval) to us as a Christmas present," quipped Joachim Swietlik, head of the citizens' group, who claims that 90 percent of Heinersdorf doesn't want the mosque.

The row highlights a Europe-wide debate about the integration of Muslims, ranging from calls for improved schooling and language teaching and tougher tests for immigrants to a discussion about whether veils and headscarves hinder the integration of Muslim women.

Ahmadiyya initially presented plans for the mosque to district officials in the spring of 2005, and at the time there was no controversy. But Swietlik as well as others complain they know very little about the group, which currently worships in a single-family house in Reinickendorf, a neighboring district.

"They should build a mosque where their community is based," said Swietlik, a 42-year-old auto glazier who was raised in the former East Germany. "Or wherever a lot of Muslims live -- Kreuzberg, Wedding," he added, referring to the districts where many Turks who came to West Berlin under guest worker programs during the 1960s settled and had kids.

Ahmadis, though, aren't Turkish, and may not be welcome in Kreuzberg or Wedding. They're a largely Pakistani sect of Muslims established in India in 1889 by a man called Mirsa Ghulam Ahmed. Strict orthodox Islamic teaching sees Mohammed as the last prophet of God, and the Ahmadis agree -- but they also recognize "shadow prophets," less important messengers of God, and Ahmed counts as one of these. This wrinkle in their beliefs separates them from many other Muslims. The Pakistani government even declared them "not Muslim" in 1974, and in 1975 Ahmadiyya was kicked out of the Saudi Arabian-led Muslim World League.

KFC and Allah

The mosque in Heinersdorf is meant to be two stories high, with a 12-meter (40-foot) minaret, on the half-vacant sauerkraut factory site. The smell of frying oil wafts over the property from a nearby Kentucky Fried Chicken. Ahmadiyya admits it has no particular reason to build there besides the inexpensive land, but an Ahmadi mosque in Germany would not be unprecedented: There are 17 in the country already.

"In our experience, the protests stop as soon as we start to build the mosque," says the German head of Ahmadiyya, Abdullah Uwe Wagishauser, a 56-year-old former hippie from western Germany who converted to Islam in the 1970s. The group has no plans to oppose the protesters in Heinersdorf; in fact almost every mosque they've built has met with local protests and resistance. He says it's a classic case of not-in-my-backyard. "No one wants a mosque in their neighborhood," says Wagishauser.

The resistance in Heinersdorf, though, is unusually strong. The Pankow-Heinersdorf Citizens' Interest Group -- with 70 members -- managed to gather 6,000 signatures between the spring of 2006 and last Friday, when their attempt to ban the mosque formally failed. Their objections included traffic chaos and falling property prices, but the longest paragraph in the petition expresses concern about "an Islamic-Ahmadiyya parallel society, which would have the goal of overturning our liberal-democratic order."

A threat to democracy?

Ahmadiyya has about 30,000 members in Germany. The group isn't considered a problem by the government. Erhart Körting, who as Berlin's Senator of the Interior has to worry about terrorism, says Ahmadiyya is a "rather orthodox club," but not a threat to the German constitution. Ahmadiyya rejects violence, and not even the Citizens' Interest Group perceive the group as a terrorist threat.

"They're not armed, but they have to swear an oath to be missionaries," said Günter Bronner, the white-haired man at the vigil, growing overexcited. "We know about oaths of allegiance! We had those under Hitler!"

The imam of the 200-strong Ahmadiyya group in Berlin is a Pakistani-born man with German citizenship called Abdul Basit Tariq. He gives Friday prayers in German and spoke at Berlin's five-year commemoration of Sept. 11, 2001, at the invitation of William Timken, America's ambassador to Germany. He's heavy, tired-looking, and quite conservative. When his wife knocks to let him know about a call on his cell phone, he takes it from her hand, which pokes out from behind the frosted-glass kitchen door -- to keep a male interviewer in their home from laying eyes on her. He believes marriage is "God's will" and wants to protect his community from the easy morality of modern Europe as much as the Interest Group wants to keep Heinersdorf free of Ahmadiyya.

"We've tried to meet with representatives of the Ahmadiyya community," complains Swietlik. "But these meetings always bring up new questions."

He points out that 6,000 signatures on the petition represents a full 90 percent of Heinersdorf's 6,500 residents. "Which brings us to a point we just don't understand," he said. "Democracy is supposed to enforce the will of the people. That's the basic principle of democracy, right? And when 90 percent of the people in a district like Heinersdorf are against the building of a mosque, that's a pretty clear statement. We don't understand why politicians don't line up behind us."

Gabi Groth, a lean 49-year-old saleswoman with brown hair and wire-frame glasses who turned out for the candlelight vigil, added, "We Heinersdorfers are afraid that radicals from the right and left will come here and make an issue out of this mosque."

She may have been thinking of a meeting in March 2006, when Ahmadiyya held an information session in a Heinersdorf school gymnasium. Fifteen-hundred locals turned up, too many for everyone to find a seat -- which made the atmosphere tense even before the meeting was crashed by members of the German far right. Police broke things up before the information session could start and led Ahmadiyya representatives out under special protection. Someone hollered, "Wir sind das Volk!" ("We are the people") -- an anti-Communist phrase from the old East Germany -- and a lot of people in the gym took up the chant.

"We can do as many information sessions as we want," says Wagishauser, the German head of Ahmadiyya, with resignation. "I can't even remember how much we've explained and discussed in all the places where we've wanted to build mosques. In the end it's not much use. Communism used to be the great threat; now it's Islam. It's just the conflict of our time."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,456751,00.html

Poll shows 82 percent of Germans feel politically disenfranchised

By Dietmar Henning
16 January 2007

The gulf between official political life and the German population has reached proportions without precedent in the post-war period. According to a Forsa opinion poll on behalf of the Stern magazine, 82 percent of the German population believe they are politically disenfranchised. An ever-greater percentage doubt that any change can be achieved through elections.

The poll published at the end of December 2006 declares that 82 percent of the population believe that “no consideration is given to the interests of the people.” In east Germany, this figure reaches 90 percent. Only 18 percent are of the opinion that “the people have something to say.”

The data of the survey is even more explicit over the role of elections. Only 5 percent of those questioned declared that one could “strongly influence” political developments through elections. Just 48 percent believe that the voter could exert “some” influence through his or her participation in an election, while 47 percent are convinced that elections are incapable of bringing about political change. In east Germany, this latter figure again increases to 56 percent.

The opinion poll organisation Forsa also questioned citizens on their adherence to the political system as laid down in Germany’s post-war constitution (the Basic Law), which states, “All government authority proceeds from the people.” According to the inquiry, 36 percent of those questioned were dissatisfied with the constitutional political system, while 61 percent are dissatisfied with the actual functioning of the system. In east Germany, the corresponding figures were 51 and 79 percent.

The gulf between the population and official politics is also clear from the membership loss in Germany’s two main parties, which were formerly described as “people’s parties.”

At the end of September 2006, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) had 561,070 members. This represents a loss of nearly one third of its membership since 1991, shortly after the reunification of Germany, when CDU membership topped 750,000. The Social Democratic Party (SPD) has suffered an even more drastic loss of members. In 1998, at the start of the period in government of the SPD-Green Party coalition led by SPD Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, the party still had 755,000 members. At the end of last year, this figure had dropped to 561,000. In both parties, the largest proportion of membership is filled by men over the age of 60.

A well-known television programme devoted to the discussion of political issues took up this theme, and on January 7, television hostess Sabine Christiansen led a discussion on the topic, “Does politics still take citizens seriously?”

One of those to speak from the invited members of the audience was Axel Theissen, former chairman of the SPD local organisation in Eddelak in the state of Schleswig-Holstein. In November of last year, he quit the SPD along with 18 other members, and the local association was disbanded. The chemical plant worker vented his indignation about the policy of the party of which he had been a member for many years: “The social issue is omitted and the SPD is implementing social cuts.” This was the case during the SPD’s coalition with the Greens, and is now no different with the SPD in a grand coalition with the CDU/Christian Social Union (CSU).

In fact, an unprecedented redivision of wealth had taken place between 1998 and 2005 during the period in office of the SPD-Green coalition government. Big business and the rich were awarded billions in tax cuts, while workers and, in particular, the unemployed were forced to pick up the tab in the form of social and welfare cuts. When popular opposition grew against such measures, the SPD prematurely dissolved parliament in order to smooth the way for the CDU to take power. Since then, election promises made in 2005 have been swept aside and new measures introduced—notably a 3 percent increase in Value-Added Tax and addition of two extra years to qualify for retirement benefits. At the same time, additional cuts have been made to entitlements for the unemployed, and a fresh range of tax cuts for industry is on the way.

The latest Forsa poll makes clear that voters are disgusted with extravagant election promises, nice-sounding statements of basic policy and repeated arguments for social cuts. The widespread “disillusionment with politics and democracy” that has been often deplored by the media and political circles is an expression of popular alienation and growing opposition towards the established parties, which are beholden to corporate and financial interests that are thoroughly hostile to the needs of broad masses of working people.

The Stern magazine received and published a number of reader letters and e-mails. Horst Geib wrote: “It is urgently necessary to stem the entire system of lobbyism, which has our country in the grasp,” and Stern adds: “Like Horst Geib many readers criticise the excessive influence on political decisions by economic circles.”

The Forsa inquiry also shows, however, that there is widespread interest in establishing some sort of influence over political decision-making. An overwhelming majority (80 percent of those questioned) supported the introduction of referenda and popular votes as a means of influencing national policies.

In the television programme of January 7, it was in particular left to Gregor Gysi, a leader of Germany’s recently formed Left Party-Party of Democratic Socialism, to express official disquiet over the increasing popular opposition to the political mainstream. Gysi warned his colleagues in the SPD and the CDU that they all shared a responsibility to “once again make democracy attractive.”

Gysi fears above all that opposition to the established parties could develop into a movement directed against the capitalist order itself. He seeks to encourage the illusion that one could organise the system in a fairer manner through a few cosmetic changes.

In this respect, he raised as role model the small country of Switzerland, which has served for decades as a haven for tax refugees and millionaires. “In Switzerland the age-old principle applies: the millionaires do not need a legal pension, but the old age pension system needs the millionaires. We lack this principle,” he said.

Nobody should be deceived over Gysi’s current evocation of social issues. In its everyday political practice, Gysi’s party has continually bowed to the “pressure of conditions” and “specific obligations” in order to carry out policies at the behest of the banks and big business. At the receiving end are broad layers of the population such as the citizens of Berlin, who have painfully experienced the consequences of five years of coalition between the SPD and the Left Party in the German capital.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/germ-j16.shtml

As i explained in another thread nationalists should always propose the ideas of referendums and should trust in the healthy decision making of their people.

Decades of reeducation havent altered the peoples instincts on what is right/wrong on certain political issues.

All power to the people i say.

...The same "democracy" which wants to ban the NPD as an "uncosntitutional and undemocratic" party and the same "democracy" which has put hundreds upon hundreds of German nationalists in jail because they dared to speak their mind freely.And is the same democracy to which the NPD gained entry into parliament. The unwillingness of the other parties to work with them is contrary to what these elected politicians are paid by the taxpayer to do.
The banning of NPD or any other elected politicians would be unconstitutional, on grounds that elected persons cannot be de-elected after having been elected through popular vote.
Martyring the NPD would only win them sympathy from those who have otherwise elected candidates from other parties

You are quite correct Kind Lampshade Maker and since the population agrees with many of the positions of the NPD ,although it doesnt vote for it, i favour a form of basic-democracy.

But in order for the citizenship of Pankow for example to have a say on the issue of the unpopular mosque ,the land on which the mosque is to be built must be state property.

The people cannot have a say on issues of private property. In that case it all depends on restrictions the state/local council/whatever pushes through and enforces or better said: is willing to enforce.

Why not abolish privarte property at least as far as land is concerned and as far as it is land in cities,towns etc. The decision making of wether something is allowed to be built would rest solely on the hands of the state/council/etc. On top of that if the people of a constituecy disagree with a certain building/etc they could gather signatures and force a local referendum on the issue.

In a way the people would then have the power of a veto.

...the population agrees with many of the positions of the NPD ,although it doesnt vote for it, i favour a form of basic-democracy...The NPD has suffered a recent image problem. As you may know, they lost 6 seats from the elected 12 in parliament, Because, of scandals. One minister having been caught with pedarastic material on his computer's hard-drive. Along with their 3rd reich hair styles and their obsession with the 3rd Reich itself, I think they do a better job of destroying themselves without any outside help. It's unfortunate that Germany hasn't any alternative WN political organization. Perhaps it's time to organize a White party, ourselves

...But in order for the citizenship of Pankow for example to have a say on the issue of the unpopular mosque ,the land on which the mosque is to be built must be state property.

The people cannot have a say on issues of private property. In that case it all depends on restrictions the state/local council/whatever pushes through and enforces or better said: is willing to enforce.

Why not abolish privarte property at least as far as land is concerned and as far as it is land in cities,towns etc...I have no problems with Mosques, as long as they are quiet and that only White people attend service.
If not built on state property, the mosque, church, temple or synagogue would have to be built on private land. I would prefer that non-Whites would not be permited to own private property, in the first place. In which case, the synogogue would automatically get turned into a museum. Unless, some lunatic fringe Whites decide to practice Judaism, for whatever reason. Ever heard of Whikes?
As with foreign oil dependance, Whites have reciprocated a privilege of foreign property ownership with non-Whites. Dubai is a relevant example.
Eventually, we could discuss the existence of private property, once Europe becomes absent of non-Whites

Kind Lampshade Maker,

you make some valid points but i fear that you misunderstood the point i wanted to make. You refer to longterm goals like "only White people attend service" , "prefer that non-Whites would not be permited to own private property" , etc. which obviously are only going to happen after the "revolution".

I was talking about short-term goals. What for example should the mayor of the NPD (or put any nationalist party you like) do after getting elected into the office of a small German town, or as in the case of Berlin -Pankow, in a city district?

Obviously he cant just remove the non-white population of his town ,or forbid them from owning property , or forbid them entry into various buildings (be it mosques or anything else) , due to existing federal and national laws.

And the electing of nationalist mayors into office of smaller German towns has become possible in recent years especially in east Germany , while it was still a day-dreamer thing in the past.

By buying up private property (especially in east Germany where it is very cheap) the town can control of what will be built. By adding the possibilty of the local citizenry veto through the means of referendums a major desire of the german population , namely that of active decision making in local and national politics, will be satisfied.

Imagine german towns operating under this system. We dont even need the NPD in that case. All that is needed then, is a strong local nationalist structure which can rally up the people behind a popular cause and enforce a referendum on a local issue.

The problem with private property is that you cant forbid somebody to built something on his land. You can only hinder him and restrict him through local passed regulations. And thats only if you want to restrict him. Something which obviously is not the case with the mayor and city council of Berlin-Pankow for example.

Contrary to the case in Delmenhorst where nationalist Jürgen Rieger wanted to buy a hotel in the inner town to use it as a nationalist education center etc. There the local mayor and city council passed one regulation after the other although they wouldnt be able to stop him from buying it and use it for one way or another. Which eventually lead the city of Delmenhorst to buying the hotel. The rest is history.

I hope you understand now where i'm getting at.


Anyway a few things to the other points you raised although they are off-topic:

1) You named Dubai as an example. Not the german people but some capitalists might own some property or some rights in the state of Dubai. Big difference. I could care less if those capitalists did lose those rights they have there.

2)The NPD image propblem is nothing new but has existed for a long time. In the long term it has no importance whatsoever and is neglible. Images come and go and people tend to forget. In the end the only thing that matters is the inside of a package not the outside. Only a minority of Germans voted for the NPD even before the image problem occured. That is what i was refering to.

3)I personally have no problems with the Islam as a religion. I could care less for any religion for that matter cause i'm an atheist. The mosque however is something more than just a place for the muslims to pray. As nationalists we want non-Germans out of our country. By letting them build mosques etc we make them feel like they are "home". Thereby reducing their incentive to actually return to their places of origin even more so. Compare the life of a Gastarbeiter in the early 60's with the life of the foreigner today. Which one do you think was longing for his home more and why?

Here the article about the Delmenhorst scandal. Compare the inititiave of the establishment in Delmenhorst to keep the "neo nazis" out with the situation in Berlin - Pankow.

21.12.2006

German City Buys Hotel Wanted by Nazis

The small German city of Delmenhorst in Lower Saxony has paid an overinflated price for a vacant hotel to keep neo-Nazis from using it as a right-wing center.

On Wednesday, Delmenhorst City Council paid three million euros ($4 million) for the Hotel am Stadtpark. Nearly a third of the money was collected by the city's 75,000 residents to stop the neo-Nazis moving into town.

Delmenhorst's mayor, Patrick de La Lanne, described the purchase as a victory.

"We did it!. We have kept the Nazis out of our town," La Lanne said.

Delmenhorst residents fought the supposed plans by a well-known far-right lawyer Jürgen Rieger to buy the vacant hotel and convert it into a meeting point and training site for neo-Nazi groups.

Rieger reportedly offered 3.4 million euros for the site. The hotel's vendor was persuaded to accept slightly less from the civic-action group.

Inflated price

According to evaluators, the hotel was only worth 1.3 million. The town had to pay a political price, La Lanne said. "We have political enemy, and that's the Nazis."

However, even back in September, the seriousness of the original offer by Rieger and his clients -- the mysterious Wilhelm Tietjen Foundation for Fertilization -- was in doubt.

Critics said the campaign was a ploy by Nazis and property-owners to drive up prices, and warned that paying the inflated sum could cause similar activities in other parts of Germany.

Delmenhorst Council is unsure what it will do with the 100 room hotel now. There have been suggestions to turn it into an old-people's home or a community center.

DW staff (kh)

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2287690,00.html

GERMANY: A model of integration

http://www.channel4.com/more4/news/news-opinion-feature.jsp?id=512

...Imagine german towns operating under this system. We dont even need the NPD in that case. All that is needed then, is a strong local nationalist structure which can rally up the people behind a popular cause and enforce a referendum on a local issue.But, even then, is their power limited. A major can only control the appropriation of funds but cannot legally ethnicaly cleanse his realm. He can halt public funding for a mosque but cannot prevent its privately funded erection, as long as the building conforms to code. That's my basic argument for infiltrating European Union government where White National parties have now formed a coalition to exercise their numerical legislative strength...Contrary to the case in Delmenhorst where nationalist Jürgen Rieger wanted to buy a hotel in the inner town to use it as a nationalist education center etc. There the local mayor and city council passed one regulation after the other although they wouldnt be able to stop him from buying it and use it for one way or another. Which eventually lead the city of Delmenhorst to buying the hotel.This is a typical example of how a mayor can appropriate tax money for buying a worthless building at an inflated price basicaly against the will of financially conscious constituents....You named Dubai as an example. Not the german people but some capitalists might own some property or some rights in the state of Dubai. Big difference. I could care less if those capitalists did lose those rights they have there.The point I was trying to make is that of reciprocal dependancy. Because, a handfull of capitalists are able to enjoy personal privileges in off-shore investment countries such as Dubai, they can excercise political leverage, at home, through lobbying or through campaign donations or through plain bribery deposits into secret Swiss bank accounts. As the Russians and their Soviet predecesors have done by supplying the West with pipelined oil...Compare the life of a Gastarbeiter in the early 60's with the life of the foreigner today. Which one do you think was longing for his home more and why?The worst ones are the intigrated Turks. Because, they are German outside, but Turk inside. I know one who looks White and shaves his head (perhaps to look more so). He might have a White mother or probably carry a Viking or Celtic gene. He masters the German language, as well as the local dialect. But, has a bazaar mentality, in that he will cheat you out of 100 EUROs instead of one million