Let’s say it in German: Der
neue Eiserne Vorhang – Goebbels Redux
!

Angela Merkel’s Political Correctness
predecessor, Goebbels

And who was Goebbels?
Joseph
Goebbels
[1897-1945] served as minister of propaganda for the German Third
Reich under Adolf Hitler—a position from which he spread the Nazi message.
In 1927, Goebbels founded Der Angriff (“The Attack”),
a weekly national Socialist newspaper, and the following year, Hitler appointed
him to the post of national director of propaganda for the Nazis.
Once installed, Goebbels began creating the Führer myth around Hitler,
punctuating it with huge rallies geared toward converting the German people to
Nazism. His day-to-day activities also included designing posters, publishing
propaganda pieces, using his bodyguards to incite street battles and generally
increasing political agitation.
An “Iron Curtain”?
The first
recorded application
of the term to Communist Russia, again in the sense of
the end of an era, comes in Vasily
Rozanov
‘s 1918 polemic The Apocalypse of Our
Times
, and it is possible that Churchill read it there following the
publication of the book’s English translation in 1920. The passage runs:
If the German people lay down their weapons, the Soviets, according to
the agreement between Roosevelt, Churchill,
and Stalin,
would occupy all of East and Southeast Europe along with the greater part of
the Reich. An iron curtain
would fall over this enormous territory controlled by the Soviet Union, behind
which nations would be slaughtered.
Although its popularity
as a Cold War symbol is attributed to its use in a speech Winston
Churchill
gave in March 1946 in Fulton,
Missouri,[6]
Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph
Goebbels
had already used the term in reference to the Soviet Union.
But today, in 2017, Goebbels is unusually
plump, wears a skirt, and has a hair dresser. His name is now Angela Merkel.
She, too, is creating a myth, one that is so full of cracks and leaks it can
hardly hold the malice against truth and for the German people – the myth that
Muslim refugees will help to remake Germany. It can be

Merkel: Riding her Prancing Unicorn to defeat

held together with the
tool of propaganda, government lies, force, and censorship.

But that alliance is not working too well.  Were it working as well as expected, there
would be no organized opposition to the Islamization of Germany, no opposition
to the establishment of a “German Islam,”
no demonstrations, no Germans arrested or fined for “hate
speech
.” There would be no Afd Party
that threatens to end Merkel’s fantasy in progress of an Islamic Germany.
Germany’s
strict libel
and slander laws are meant to protect citizens by making it a
crime to defame others. More than 218,000 cases involving insults were filed
with prosecutors in 2015. But few Internet based cases were prosecuted.
Germans know what Merkel and Jean-Claude Juncker
are up to, which is to force them to submit to the European Union’s immigration
policies, and to submit to Islam, to “integrate” them with Islam, to inure Germans
to the migrant record of rapes, robberies, harassment, and the presence of
countless Muslims hostile to and opposed to assimilating Western culture and
values.
What is the “hate speech” that the German government
wants to suppress or prohibit? Wikipedia’s definition of
it is:
Hate speech is speech which attacks
a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic
origin
, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation. In the law of
some countries, hate speech is described as speech, gesture or conduct,
writing, or display which is forbidden because it incites violence or
prejudicial action against or by a protected group, or individual on the basis
of their membership to the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a
protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership to the group.
Muslims, however, are not ever found guilty of “hate speech”; they can publically
call uncovered Western women “sluts” or “prostitutes,” because their insults
are deemed expressions of their “religion” or as “legitimate” forms of “political
protest.”
“Hate speech” in fact has no
physical power
to harm anyone. Its harmful property is purely a
psychological one; if one is so thin-skinned or self-esteem-deficient that a
sneer or a dirty look can be claimed as derogatory or defamatory or hurtful,
then one may as well retire to a cave or an island where one would not
encounter other men. “Hate speech” has no metaphysical or existential potency.
I oppose the very concept of it, mainly because it can be used to censor any
form of criticism – book, cartoon, satire, or middle fingers.
Eugene Volokh, in his May 2015 Washington Post article, “No,
there’s no “hate speech exception to the First Amendment
,” notes,
But there is no hate
speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that
might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One
is as free to condemn Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or
illegal aliens, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or
Socialism or Democrats or Republicans.
Unfortunately, Germany has no equivalent of
the First
Amendment
that would stymie government plans to regulate speech. Merkel and
her censorial
cronies
, such as Mark
Zuckerberg
of Facebook, are just fine with its absence. To make a statement
on paper, on a soapbox, or on the Internet that is critical of migrants and especially
of Muslims is fair game for punishment by the government.
This leaves the German government to quash
what it deems “fake news” from any quarter but its own.
Judith Bergman in her January 2017 Gatestone
article, “Germany’s
New Propaganda Bureau
,” reports:
Germany has,
of course, been cracking down on free speech for quite a while now. Already in
September 2015, Merkel said, “When people stir up sedition on social networks
using their real name, it is not only the state that has to act, but also
Facebook as a company should do something against these statements”.
Under a
government program, which has enlisted the help of the German non-governmental
organization, the Amadeu Antonio Foundation, led by Anetta Kahane (who has
turned out, in a fine twist of irony, to be a former Stasi agent and informer) German authorities are monitoring how many supposedly “racist” posts
reported by Facebook users are deleted within 24 hours. Justice Minister Heiko
Maas has pledged to look at legislative measures if the results turn
out to be “unsatisfactory”. The program is scheduled to run until
March 2017.

Germany says: “Don’t believe your
lying eyes!”

Bergman continues:
A married
couple, Peter and Melanie M., were prosecuted and convicted in July 2016 of
creating a Facebook group that criticized the government’s migration policy.
Their page stated, “The war and economic refugees are flooding
our country. They bring terror, fear, sorrow. They rape our women and put our
children at risk. Make this end!” Also, in July 2016, 60 people suspected
of writing “hate speech” online had their homes raided by German police.
None of the
above seems to be enough, however, for the president of the Bundestag, Norbert
Lammert, from Merkel’s CDU party, who believes that what Facebook is already
doing against “hate speech” is not enough. According to Lammert, there is a need for more legislation.
A law to bring social networks under penalty of fines if they fail to erase
“hate messages” and “false news” has just been announced by
Volker Kauder, leader of the parliamentary group in Merkel’s current Bundestag
and CDU/CSU faction, and Thomas Oppermann, Chairman of the Social Democratic
Party (SPD) parliamentary group.
European
Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has also recently called on companies such as Facebook to address “false
announcements” on the Internet, saying he felt that the Europeans were
increasingly becoming “sensitive to who is fluttering around them and who
is telling them the truth.”
As I noted above, Muslims are as a rule
exempt from charges of hate speech. Bergman concludes with:
In another
such instance, a German court found that the firebombing of a synagogue in
Wuppertal by two German Arabs and a juvenile accomplice was not anti-Semitic,
but rather “an act of protest” to “bring attention to the Gaza war.” The men were
convicted of arson.
In Germany,
it is criminal to bring attention to the problems that come with the
government’s migration policies, or to criticize those policies, because this
constitutes “hate speech.” Firebombing a synagogue, on the other
hand, is simply an “act of protest.” Perhaps, once the “Defense
Center against Disinformation” is set up, such “acts of protest”
will be labeled, “Officially Approved Un-Fake Communication.”
Stab a Jew,
or run over him in Israel, and that’s “free expression”! It’s “protest”!
Back to “fake news.” How’s this for “fake
news”? 
“His Excellency the Exalted Ambassador from Mars
announces to Linda Sarsour
he will convert to Islam!”
Okay. So you don’t believe that’s a
legitimate headline and that it has no connection to reality. Understandable. But
the truth about Islam and Muslim migrants – and how they are making Germany
(and Sweden, Denmark, and Norway) inhospitable “no go” zones for indigenous citizens
– that’s “fake news.” In short they are being “Islamized.”
Robbie Travers, in his
Gatestone article of January 2017, “The ‘Fake
News’ Censorship Industry
,” writes:
The German
government thinks it knows exactly who should be the arbiter of truth
and what articles you should be allowed to post. Itself!
After a bill
was proposed by German lawmakers, which threatened fines of up to 500,000 Euros ($522,000) for
publishing “fake news,” Facebook decided to use an organization called Correctiv, described as a German
fact-checking non-profit organization, to decide whether reported stories are
“real” or “fake.”
This system
would then encourage individual Facebook users to report other users’ posts to
Correctiv. Facebook would then have Correctiv label any of the articles
“fake news,” as they see fit.
Even then,
this proposed response by Facebook was not harsh enough for some German
lawmakers, who want articles deemed to be fake by the government to be removed within 24 hours, or else fine Facebook 500,000 Euros.
That move would undoubtedly lead to individuals abandoning Facebook for other
social networks, or more probably, Facebook abandoning them. German attempts to
police the Facebook could end up useless; to many, the plan looks suspiciously
like a money-making stratagem.
A
centralized “speech police” would also create a monopolization of the
media industry. One or two large platforms would dominate the public debate;
fringe voices would be ignored and cast aside.
Travers continues:
Facebook’s
“Trending News Team” banned people exposing jihadists, but allowed pages glorifying anti-police violence and pages promoting anti-Israeli terrorism. That is quite a track record.
Individuals,
without even inciting violence, have been wrongly censored by Facebook. A
former Gatestone writer, Ingrid
Carlqvist
, saw her account suspended; Gatestone writer Douglas Murray’s articles were censored from Facebook; and this author had his Facebook blocked for questioning Black Lives Matter. All the banned
authors challenged politically correct revisions of events.
The whole
censorship industry is open to abuse; presumably, that is what censorship is
for in the first place.

Dutch
politician Geert Wilders
says
goodbye to Germany?

Censorship is about playing with men’s minds,
about faking reality for them and for the censors themselves, with government-approved
“fake news.” The original Goebbels was a master of it, suckering in a morally
and philosophically disarmed populace. Merkel and Juncker are not so good at
it. Thus, Merkel and her co-conspirators are worried that her regime might come
to an end, and the “iron curtain” of fake news would rust away.