It seems that party politics shows astonishing similarities everywhere. In every country, politicians are ready to make promises before elections that they have no intention of keeping. Everywhere, there is a lot of talk but much less action. Vote for us, and everything will be faster, stronger, and better. Once the elections are over, campaign promises are forgotten—no one pays attention to them anymore, and parties return to what they were doing before the elections.
If it turns out that some voters do not suffer from forgetfulness, skilled politicians have ready-made excuses for them. They claim that the promises were not broken but merely delayed a little in their implementation. Besides, it’s not our party’s fault but rather the circumstances, stubborn coalition partners, or ultimately, the great powers—in short, factors beyond our control. Whatever the case, our intentions were good and noble, and we do not abandon them. That is why we will fulfill our promises some other time, for example, after the next elections. By then, everything will already be much easier.
DECLARING GOOD INTENTIONS
The well-known post-war German conservative, Armin Mohler, claimed that liberalism thrives on the declaration of good intentions. “What I do not forgive liberals for is that they have created a society where a person is valued by what they say (or write) – and not by what they truly are,” wrote Mohler. From this, the German conservative concluded that liberalism is the perfect breeding ground for the development of the mafia—in a broader sense of the word. This is not about the image of a mafia boss from American films, a slick-haired Italian in a hat, nor someone resembling Tony Montana from Scarface. The mafia Mohler had in mind consists of “unscrupulous types” who recite what they are expected to say, join the right party, and then proceed to do whatever they please. A society that celebrates the public declaration of noble intentions provides the perfect environment for the emergence of a class that thrives on empty promises while conducting dubious dealings behind the scenes.
UNDER THE GUISE OF PROGRESS
Mohler lamented that, in a liberal society, people are not valued for their actions but for their words. The sweet music of empty phrases detaches people from reality, and, intoxicated by grandiose slogans and a sense of moral righteousness, they lose touch with the world of experience. In such an environment, no scoundrel would hesitate to take advantage of the situation and conceal their own depravity under the guise of fighting for progress. The recent German federal elections offer a useful example of how this works, though countless examples can be found in Serbia as well. The Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the party of Angela Merkel, which in 2015 threw open the doors to migrants from all over the world and fiercely defended this policy for a decade—labeling all critics as racists and misanthropes—suddenly, just a month before the federal elections, realized that the open-door policy might have gone too far. Their leader, Friedrich Merz, who was seen as the most serious candidate for the chancellorship before the elections, did not hold back in promising a fight against mass immigration and the consequences it brings.
KNIFE ATTACKS, MURDERS, RAPES
The awakening that the CDU experienced did not happen overnight. The increasing frequency of knife attacks, murders, gang rapes, rising crime rates, and the decline in internal security are closely linked to the surge of mass immigration from foreign cultural backgrounds. For this occasion, it is necessary to recall recent cases, such as the attack on the Christmas market in Magdeburg in December last year, where five people were killed and over 200 injured. The attacker, Taleb Al-Abdulmohsen, was originally from Saudi Arabia and arrived in Germany as an asylum seeker in 2006. Then, in January, another attack followed in Aschaffenburg, Bavaria, when a 28-year-old Afghan man stabbed and killed a two-year-old child and a middle-aged man while seriously injuring two more people. The Afghan attacked a group of kindergarten children, and the man lost his life trying to stop the assault. The perpetrator had been living in a refugee shelter in Germany.
It is important to remember that these are just the most extreme cases that managed to attract global media attention. The same applies to last year’s attacks in Mannheim and Solingen, as well as this year’s incident in Villach, Austria, where a teenager was killed in a knife attack, and four more people were injured. However, the question remains: how many attacks occur that do not result in fatalities, and how many cases never reach public awareness?
A “PROVOCATIVE” SYMBOL OF CHRISTIAN DOMINANCE
The left-liberal media machinery and their allies from left-wing parties have, as always, attempted to portray all these incidents as “isolated cases.” According to the well-known narrative, the fact that fatal attacks on random passersby are now regularly occurring somewhere in Germany has nothing to do with immigration. After all, mentally unstable individuals exist in every population. Therefore, the solution is simply a little more tolerance and human kindness, along with stronger police oversight and perhaps a few adjustments to immigration policy—but certainly not a real shift in migration policies or border closures. Meanwhile, Germans have once again been told that they will have to accept the “new normal,” whether they like it or not. At the very least, their traditional Christmas markets will be surrounded by concrete barricades, and their traditional carnivals will take place under police guard. In the end, perhaps even their names are too provocative in a multicultural, diverse society, where even Christmas itself is seen as a symbol of white, Christian dominance. It is not hard to recall the words of Daniel Cohn-Bendit, one of the leaders of the 1968 movement, who openly admitted that a multicultural society would be more dynamic, uglier, and less cohesive, and that it would inevitably produce winners and losers. That vision can now be observed on the streets of European cities.
RESERVED FOR THE “LOSERS”
Of course, Cohn-Bendit had no objections to such changes, but he did not experience the blessings of multiculturalism firsthand. That was reserved for the “losers”—those who had no choice but to adapt to living under someone else’s rules. The political-media elite arrogantly tells them that losers have the right to be angry, but not too loudly. In any case, for the media-political cartel, the greatest danger is not internal terrorism but the possibility that, after these attacks, the right-wing might politically profit—represented in Germany by the Alternative for Germany (AfD). This fits into Mohler’s diagnosis of liberalism. He warned that the right-winger is the last remaining enemy for liberals. With communists and leftists, common ground can still be found, but the right-winger is a spoiler of the game. Even a terrorist who attacks people on the streets is less dangerous than a right-winger because liberals believe that, over time, they can tame the terrorist. In contrast, they do not know how to deal with the right-winger.
PROTESTS AGAINST THE RIGHT-WING OPPOSITION
Thus, every discussion about immigration and internal terrorism ultimately ends with tirades about the danger of the “far-right.” The actual attacks and real victims fade into the background in favor of hallucinations about a threat from the right. Mohler’s readers cannot overlook yet another declaration of good intentions and fairy tales about a world beyond the rainbow—narratives that, despite their utopian nature, carry real political consequences. After countless terrorist attacks, the best response that liberals and leftists could come up with was to organize demonstrations—not against terrorists, but against the right-wing. Compared to the phantom menace of right-wing extremism, Islamic terrorists fade into the background, as do their victims.
Given that the NGOs involved in organizing these protests against the right-wing were financially supported by government funds and had well-known ties to the left-wing parties that made up the outgoing federal government, the result was that, on the eve of elections, the outgoing government had effectively organized protests against the right-wing opposition.
Demonstrations calling for the removal of the opposition and its replacement with a more government-friendly alternative are not characteristic of democratic systems. However, they fit perfectly into a political model that thrives on “good intentions”—one in which real problems are concealed by performative displays of moral righteousness.
PROTECTING THE “DEMOCRATIC ORDER,” NOT THE CITIZENS
Tens of thousands of people gathered in the streets of Munich to show the world that they oppose the immoral right-wingers. Violating the norms of democracy, they claimed to be defending democracy from an imagined threat while ignoring the real one.
However, in the first half of February, another terrorist attack followed—this time in Munich itself. The attacker was once again a young Afghan who drove a car into a procession of families with children. In this latest “isolated incident,” a two-year-old girl and her 37-year-old mother lost their lives. The attacker did not play cat and mouse. He openly admitted that he had deliberately driven into the crowd and that the attack was religiously motivated. He did not deny shouting Allahu Akbar. For government representatives, this was an attack on the abstract concept of the “democratic order.” If that is the case, it would suggest that the government’s priority is not protecting its citizens but, above all, preserving the “democratic order,” while the dead and injured are merely collateral damage. Those who had previously claimed to be defending democracy and immigration policy against the right-wing remained largely silent this time. After all, their biggest concern was ensuring that Alternative for Germany (AfD) did not gain electoral advantage from the attack.
THE DAY AFTER THE ELECTIONS, PROMISES DISAPPEARED
Before the elections, Friedrich Merz and his CDU promised that if they came to power, they would finally take action on migration policy. In this spirit, they initiated a proposal in the Bundestag, which was also supported by AfD. But in a democracy, what is said before an election does not necessarily apply after the election. Just one day later, Merz announced that neither he nor his party intended to close the borders. He also declared his willingness to negotiate with the Social Democrats, who, for their part, had no intention of changing immigration policy. Those who voted for the CDU, believing that the old party had finally understood the message and trusted its vocal support for the parliamentary initiative, were left disappointed. One day after the elections, the promises were gone, and the very types Mohler had described returned to their old ways. CDU quickly forgot the commitments it had made and reverted to the policies of Angela Merkel.
IN AN ATMOSPHERE OF EXISTENTIAL DANGER
However, on March 6, another knife attack occurred—this time at the main railway station in Dortmund. The suspect was a 22-year-old Syrian. This case cannot be interpreted as an “attack on democracy,” as the motive was a trivial argument over a monthly transport ticket. Still, this does not mean that the authorities can breathe a sigh of relief, as even in this latest “isolated incident,” the link between mass immigration from foreign cultural backgrounds and insecurity is evident.
Before the elections, one commentator particularly emphasized that the elections were taking place in an atmosphere of existential danger in a dual sense. On the one hand, there is individual danger—an ordinary citizen cannot be sure whether, when stepping outside, a migrant might stab them in the neck or run them over with a car. On the other hand, there is existential danger in a collective sense—the question is whether the German nation, its people, culture, and traditions will survive or not. This does not apply only to Germany but to any country that refuses to control its borders and believes it can solve demographic problems through “population replacement” (Renaud Camus).
Given Serbia’s experience with demographic shifts in Kosovo and Metohija, the country should pay particular attention to immigration policies and initiatives such as the so-called Open Balkan.
PARALYZED BY LIBERAL IDEOLOGY
It is evident that the situation has escalated compared to Mohler’s time. Today, it is no longer just about casually reciting slogans. Now, due to high-minded moralistic and humanitarian rhetoric, real people are dying on the streets of their cities or are subjected to other forms of violence. Simply put, corruption and mass immigration are lethal. However, it seems that liberal slogans about open borders, human rights, and the free movement of people are more important than the fate of nations. The political class follows the path of least resistance because no one wants to risk bad publicity—something most clearly seen in the case of Friedrich Merz. His example once again proves that promises can be made before elections, but after the elections, everything continues as before. Even if a shift in policy were considered, the guardians of public opinion—from the media, experts, and NGOs—are there to mobilize their clientele and restore the status quo. The result is the endangerment of a nation’s collective existence, as it, paralyzed by liberal ideology and its slogans, loses its ability for self-defense. Long before Mohler, another German conservative, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, made a statement worth remembering: Because of liberalism, nations perish.
