Read me the article

Goetz Kubicek: Quiet work to victory over globalists


I would advise Serbs to work calmly, quietly, metapolitically, and to look for politicians who will shape the next generation with a lot of patience and wisdom.

Goetz Kubicek (1970) is a German publisher, writer and publicist, as well as one of the most important representatives of the "new right" in Germany. He is the author of several books and a large number of articles and studies. Frank Lison's book Contempt for Your Own appeared in Kubiček's Antaios Verlag publishing house. About cultural self-hatred in Europe, whose translation into Serbian recently appeared in the edition of Informatika from Belgrade.

Mr. Kubicek recently visited Belgrade to present the book, and we took the opportunity to talk to him about the political and cultural situation in Germany and Europe.

How do you interpret the recent results of the elections in West Germany in light of the fact that the ruling SPD experienced the worst result in history, and that the Greens are the only real winners, despite the fact that few people talk about the green agenda today due to the energy crisis?

- These elections were moral and political elections. Burbock and Habek occupy two main ministries. One deals with foreign policy, the other with everything related to energy security. They both came from a moralistic position, not a political one. This means that no distinction is made between right and wrong, meaningful and meaningless, but between good and evil. Simply put, the world is divided into black and white and voters are encouraged to react emotionally. That moral and political stupor has conditioned that Habek can buy gas and oil in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, without anyone asking why those countries are better than Russia. Today, Russia is an absolute black hole. Other countries could theoretically become black holes, but at the moment they are not. And that clear moral-political narrative makes the Greens so popular.

Are the Germans tired of the moral blackmail that is constantly put in front of them? Do you feel that fatigue in society? And how strong is the globalist influence in the media today, compared to the period 10 or 15 years ago, that is, is that influence growing or declining?

- What we can call global civilization is pluralistic only in theory. It is a frequently described phenomenon: the reduction of pluralism to individualism. The pressure on each individual to adjust to that framework is incredible. I'll explain. Earlier, while there were functional institutions, some were officers, some teachers, some judges, and some salesmen. Each profession had its own rules and its own code of conduct. The question was not whether there was anything good or bad, but the only question was whether someone was really a soldier, a salesman, a politician or a judge, or how he did his job. None of them had to adjust to the global moral and political sense. However, when they are no longer what they should be, but above all they must be on the morally correct side, then there is a social leveling. Thus, the social pressure to adapt becomes stronger.

And what is the situation in the media on that issue?

- The media are an instrument of exerting the mentioned pressure. They are no longer used for reporting, and above all they are no longer a corrective of power, but have become what increases that power. First of all, we mean the power of those who represent global civilization. All this is connected with the fact that 85-90 percent of journalists come from the same milieu. Let me give you an example: research has been done in Germany which shows that 60-65 percent of journalists vote for the Greens, about 25-30 for the SPD, CDU or FDP, and for the opposition, for example for the AFD, approximately one percent of journalists vote. One can talk for a long time about one legality that results from that. It is a systemic and firmly cemented block that is difficult to deal with.

Where are the social filters that influence such a situation, that is, that separate the suitable from the unsuitable. Are these filters at universities or elsewhere?

- Even before university. It is about the spiritual movement of the epoch, which is difficult to call truly spiritual because there is little spirit in it. That brings us to the topic of the book, and that is contempt for our own. It is basically a desire for total emancipation from all the conditions that limit a person in any way. From the sphere of traditional education, from patriarchy, etc. It is decisive that everything that is factual, everything that is factual, solid, everything that has its necessity, all that is replaced by one modern social experiment. However, since the people do not want to participate in that experiment, it must be filled with moral and political charge. Hence, all ordinary people who oppose this experiment are no longer simply individuals with a different opinion, but individuals with a wrong and above all dangerous opinion, because they allegedly want to prevent people from becoming completely free.

I would like to add one more thing: it is clear that the mentioned experiment must be explained by incredible constructions that require enormous effort and costs. Because normal things don't need complicated explanations, they are just the way they are, and those who experiment have to explain their views with incredible effort. This is generally a characteristic of ideologies. Here we return to moral politics, which simply puts an end to any discussion. The one who is morally the winner, he can end each discussion with one sentence. In Germany, in the end, it comes down to the question: are you in favor of a new genocide?

I will explain it on the Serbian example: When the Green Party in the German government had to agree to the NATO attack on Serbia, Joska Fischer, the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, said at an important party meeting that a new Auschwitz must be prevented in Kosovo. And that is the shortest way to end any debate.

Is it an abuse of the phenomenon reductio ad hitlerum in political practice?

- Actually, yes. And that is why conservatives, or simply individuals who do not want to uncritically adopt social innovations, are always under the pressure of justification. Because the question "do you stand for a new genocide" cannot be answered with "yes" or "I don't care", but at the beginning you are forced to take a defensive position and prove the moral and political correctness of your views. The problem is that there are people who use this moral and political instrument quite consciously, and others - and there are many more - who really believe in all that.

You mean the propaganda that people who support the AFD want a new Holocaust?

- Yes, basically part of the society believes that they are blue Nazis (blue is the color of the Alternative for Germany party; note A. V).

How do you see the future of Germany? Will Germany succeed in overcoming self-hatred? Do you think that this could free Europe from the American geo-strategic factor?

- It is extremely difficult to answer this question. There is a lot of speculation. Ten years ago, when the AFD appeared, when important publications began to be published, and when there was a civil-conservative breakthrough on the other side of the CDU and mainstream politics, it was thought that there would be a real debate about normalcy in Germany. society. But that hope was not fulfilled.

Of course, the right-conservative milieu is now much stronger than 10 years ago. However, it is clear to us today that normalization in Germany cannot be reported on its own. This brings us to a somewhat strange situation where the right, for example, trusts Russia and Putin.

Is that true or is it propaganda?

- Yes, of course, if the United States has put a lot of pressure on Germany in the practically unipolar world, then it is understandable that there will be two, or even better three or four geopolitical poles, ie that the world will be multipolar. That is where the United States would have to deal with China and Russia, which could allow us to become freer below that global level and move better. Hence the hope in Trump or Putin and Russia.

Therefore, it is not about some concrete help from Russia to Germany, but about the idea that it will free up more space for calming the giants to calm down the situation and freer movements in Germany. The right-conservative movement has lost the illusion that it can do something on its own in terms of normalization in Germany. We are aware that there must be some kind of external or internal shock. That shock can be a severe energy crisis, it can even be something like an imposed participation in a foreign war or any catastrophe that cannot be overcome just like that.

If we know that in France there is a similar mechanism of moral blackmail every time the right enters the second round of presidential elections; if the situation in Germany is similar or perhaps even worse due to the historical context, then who can bring about a revival of the European right? Is Hungary too small to do that?

- Hungary, of course, is not big enough to save Europe. However, I believe that Europe is the wrong measure for our work; because if we cannot positively influence our own nations, then we cannot expect that at the European level either. I think that what Orban is doing in Hungary is the maximum that can be done at the moment. It is that game between the maximum and the minimum. Even what is happening in Hungary is actually too little, because Orbán is forced to do a lot of things that the European Union expects, but he is currently getting the most out of it for his country, and I don't mean only financial and economic benefits, but on identity politics. This can be seen in the example of the policy of very careful enlargement advocated by the Visegrad Group.

Do you think that the globalist centers of power have increased the pressure on the Visegrad Group, since the right-wing governments in Slovakia and the Czech Republic have been overthrown? And how does the situation in Poland affect you in that sense?

- I can hardly say anything about that. In my work, I am very focused on Germany. In addition, I am interested in Hungary because you have a long-term government in that country with a very interesting metapolitical development. Of course, it is to some extent a product of the game of chance, because I know many interesting people from Hungary, but never from the Czech Republic or Poland. Much like I know more Serbs than Croats. However, my interest is primarily the metapolitical background in Germany, and not so much the foreign policy plan.

- How do you see the future of Europe in the context of Spengler's theses on the civilizational declinism of the West?

- That is the topic of this book (it is about the book Contempt for Frank Lison's own), which has just been translated into Serbian. So, if Spengler was right, or if we are really dealing with a cultural self-hatred that was prepared a thousand years ago and that is hidden in us, then that means that the mechanism works like clockwork, that is, that Europe's decline could last another 200 years. . However, if we reject Spengler's theses, and if we start from the fact that European culture could have taken a different path, then we can ask ourselves whether this different path would be possible today, or above all whether there are nations that this wrong path let's say Germany set off, they don't have to repeat.

Personally, I believe that due to the technical digital revolution, as well as the incredible power of seduction and corrupt power possessed by global civilization, at this moment we have no chance to return to true culture. But it should be added that in our era it is possible to live at a high cultural level, that it is still possible and allowed. The peculiarity of our time is that the world of European culture can be experienced in concert halls, museums, architecture, painting or operas. European culture is still present here; you still have the opportunity to surround yourself with only the most beautiful things and enjoy them, whether you watch, listen to or read them. Faith, the Christian foundation of Europe, can also be experienced and practiced as before.

But that culture no longer shapes the state and the people, but must be sought individually. And that is an argument that is hard to refute, because global civilization can always tell you: make your life as beautiful as you want, but let the other 100 million people enjoy the freedom to live the way they want.

What advice would you give to the Serbian people, who are often exposed to the mechanisms of moral and political blackmail in the context of our struggle from the 90s?

- Basically, it is more or less always the same advice. Peaceful, quiet, metapolitical work, and the search for politicians who will shape the next generation with a lot of patience and wisdom. It is not a question of opening five more right-wing cafes in Belgrade, but of real people writing textbooks in schools, and I do not mean the radical right, but people who know what a nation is, which ways it has moved through history and one cannot mold.

It is much harder to build something than to destroy it. It is not a matter of carrying out a couple of provocations, but of educating the people. That upbringing of the people should take place in a really conservative sense, and not with the goal of sacrificing the people for some other ideas. We must not allow moral politics to be turned upside down. In Germany, we call it the patriotism of normalization.

Why not normalize patriotism?

- Because patriotism should lead to social relations becoming normal again. So not towards a nationalistic or chauvinistic atmosphere, but precisely towards the normalization of social circumstances. That would be a lot already.