Internet Statement 2013-14


1st of May 2013

Where  does  Europe  go?



This question moves more and more people today, not only in our country but in most countries of this continent. This one can assume.


Now nearly forty years ago, in 1973, appeared the writing "The international situation, Europe, and the position of the Marxist-Leninist parties," written by Hartmut Dicke. This was a writing that, considered strategically, brought the Left in our country into a not unimportant international positioning and thus at the same time it has avoided the complete roll up by the reaction, especially at home, by means of the so-called RAF campaign at that time. Europe's position in the international context was even then an important issue. Since that time, more huge changes and upheavals in the world have happened, and today's position of Europe is no longer the same. Even today's position of the various international forces, such as, above all, the position of China, is not the same as it was then, although this country still or increasingly occupies an extremely weighty international position, but it has a different character than then.


For several years Europe has been shaken by a very deep crisis, namely one which developed in 2008 or a little earlier and then massively broke out in the fall of 2008, stimulated by the one evolving from the United States. This crisis, caused by the international capitalist-imperialist financial system, which further and further is moving away from the economic basis, goes completely aloof ways, and related and in consequence a massive debt crisis, which has moved some states close to the abyss, by no means has Europe under control. Individual states have taken some action, or rather they were forced by others, particularly by our’s, often under the pretext that the common currency could not be saved in another way. These measures have so far led to very different reactions and, except from

being no solution economically, rather are usefull not only to stir up contradictions within the European structure, but also to exacerbate them significantly in -part. This means that the situation will not be calmed, but on the contrary will further escalate.


The position of the individual European states has also changed. Due to the ongoing crisis there are a number of states, especially in the southern part of Europe - the first thing is safe to call Greece, but also Spain, Portugal and Italy and recently only the small state (partial state) Cyprus - coming across significant difficulties and the contradictions within these have tightened significantly. A massive unemployment, especially among the youth, has developed, unemployment across Europe has massively increased to nearly 20 percent, and the situation of large sections of the population leads to considerable unrest. However, the situation in the middle of Europe is yet a completely different one, above all Germany, but also Austria and some Scandinavian countries are supposedly in a much better state, at present. There is an allegation increasingly spreading, these countries, especially Germany would profit economically from the misery in the other countries, but this mainly applies to the bourgeoisie here and maybe also their State’s hangers-on, for the broad masses the situation in Germany is not so rosy as it is heard sometimes. And you have to wait and see how that will develop. Apart from that, this must not continue. But above all, by this development the division within Europe is promoted, a new division among the individual states, not only economically but also politically - you see it now regarding France and Germany - which is associated with considerable risks.

The common currency existing since more than ten years, the euro, contributed in addition to this critical development, as the basis of operations has been very different in the various countries that have adopted this currency, and these differences also have crystallized even further out and have tightened. As a consequence, the class contradictions have intensified and led to massive convulsions and unrest in these countries again, what causes problems for the state and the prevailing social layers in various European countries. In Germany it is apparently still "quiet" in this regard once you compare it, on the other hand, with Greece or Spain. Which does not mean that it can not change very quickly under certain circumstances and it is not clear to what kind of polarisations it will lead this time, in this country.


So the situation is quite complicated and diversified, it requires a lot of knowledge and care, to cope with it.


Internationally seen in terms of the forces of reaction, also has changed a lot in the last five years, especially with the current U.S. government under Obama, which pursues a different international orientation than the previous Bush administration. While the conservative Bush administration for years has taken advantage especially in the Middle East, the democratic (that now is not about literally meant) Obama direction rather aligned to Asia, and the contradiction to the newly developing emerging countries in Asia, such as China in particular, but also others, also tightened. In the Middle East, the situation is also advanced, including the Arab upheavals of 2011, which, however, only partly have produced revolutionary results, and on the other have led also to reaction and regressive phenomena there. The example of Egypt shows this very clearly, but also other countries.


Syria is currently a focal point of the opposites of both, international imperialism and other major powers, and regional antagonisms. The situation in this country is extremely brutal. For some time there is operating, with the aim of overthrowing the "dictator Assad," an opposition which are themselves highly differentiated and partially represent the various regional powers like Saudi Arabia and others which are of contradictory origin and nature, also due to the different religious orientation, but of course also by competition with each other, all trying to gain a footing there and unfold their massive subversive activity. On the other hand, the Syrian opposition is also inspired by international imperialist forces, especially from U.S. imperialism, but also by European imperialist countries, for example our own country. This has led to the establishment of an extremely brutal and heinous situation for the masses in Syria, where the various opposition forces are leading a lengthy, but basically a pretty hopeless struggle against the ruling government of Assad, which itself massively is ready to fight against being overrun, being at odds with one another and up to now not really being able in any way to present their own concept, which ensures the unity of the country and at the same time represents a social progress. Moreover also other regional powers such as Turkey has interfered there and tries to fish in troubled waters using the Kurdish question there. All this leads to a horrible slaughter in this country, the end of which is not yet in sight until now in any way. All UN appeals and advances in this direction have been fruitless, especially as aditional other international imperialist powers, such as Russia, also have their fingers in there and of course get more upright and want to expand their influence.


Next, there is the contrast in the Middle East between Israel and the Arab states, including the Palestinians, which has mainly crystallized at present in the contradiction with Iran, which also permanently can lead to difficult unoverseeable consequences, while the Israeli Zionists endeavor, of course, is acting in order to work things to the own advantage, but that partly destroys their international independence again. The duped are mainly the masses in these countries in the Middle East, because they, one the one hand, have achieved certain changes by the pressure of their revolutionary and emancipatory aspirations, but in the same time they were led the garden path by the forces that have been supported by them. This applies to both, Tunisia and Egypt and of course also for Syria and other states there. In the entire Middle East there was created a kind of explosive cauldron, and there is a complete confusion how the situation there will further develop or even come to a dissolution. Even some people in Germany, for example, who vehemently has relied on the so-called opposition in Syria two years ago and have tried even to create a kind of foreign government, see themselves now greatly deceived. Since not much is left of the illusions in this direction.


In our country, the so-called Merkel turn of March 2011 in the energy question has had very significant consequences. Not only that even now the current price has risen massively, it is unclear what will happen with the so-called renewable energy in general, there is neither the networks nor lines, nor need by the way, incidentally, Poland has already complained repeatedly that unwanted supplies of wind energy in its power supply lead to congestion, since this current is not used in Poland. Domestically, it has been reflected in a significant enhancement of the green party, the green reaction, rather, which could for the the first time take over in Baden-Württemberga state government, by this change. In fall the federal election will be held up in our country, and what there is to choose and is standing there for election, it is not likely to give rise to confidence in the future. The Greens with the SPD in tow turn out to be not more than a rip-off party, not only in the energy issue by placing them in a stupid way, especially as it has been rightly noted, to meet the middle class, which is quite wide in this country and contributes a not inconsiderable part of industry and trade, with massive tax increases, more specifically try to rip them off. In this mania they are also supported by the so-called Left Party. It does not take much imagination to imagine the consequences in the face of rising electricity prices and further crisis facing development. You can really not recommend this election to anyone. One can not recommend Merkel, because she has brought the Greens to their success. So what to do? The Left in this country is not in the state to perform here as the real alternative. A Sahra Wagenknecht, with her concept of a resurgence of Ehrhard’s welfare state lie needs not to be mentioned, especially since this whole direction still strives to excel the Greens in their own color. They could not shoot themselves in the foot more effectively. The other part of the Left Party, which is more oriented towards the former GDR, also is far from restraining them in this respect and thus they are also out of question. Other more or less remnants of the former Western leftists are of similar kind, especially because they are all trotting behind the environmentalists, even bring them to the fore like the so-called MLPD for example. So what to do in this country?


Recently, there is also another foundation, the so-called anti-euro party "Alternative for Germany". But this is no alternative. Although the euro has its problems and you also need not hold under all conditions to it, but what is represented by these forces does not suggest that they have in stock something really bringing a solution of the problems of European countries and for the strengthening of cohesion, not to mention a solution of the fundamental social problems. Countries such as France are also deeply moved by the crisis, and there is quite a risk that a re-emergence of old antagonisms between Germany and France again become rampant, which is known to have led to multiple disasters in history.


This so-called anti-euro party, it is exactly no alternative. This is exactly what we do not need. This is in fact a step back and changes nothing of the capitalist contradictions that are the exact cause of the current euro crisis. On the contrary, we must go forward in order to achieve a close connection of the progressive forces in all European countries and of course also with the progressive people around the world.


But remaining first in Europe. This is difficult enough, but this is exactly the perspective that now presents itself as an objective necessity, but can not go back to nationalist selfishness and to all that is connected with it, can be connected and will be.


One of the most enjoyable events of the last times from France is the resistance there of broader sections of the population against the introduction of so-called "marriage for all", i.e. the homo marriage, i.e. perfect equality and the recognition of so-called homosexual or same-sex partnerships, including the adoption law for children, which was planned by the Hollande government and has now been adopted and approved by the French Parliament. One such initiative has of course long before taken place in our country and there still is existing, but in France it has caused significantly more resistance from the population as performed in this country, and that is extremely gratifying. This is, of course, not surprising since France is a country that has largely, thanks to its revolutionary and emancipatory role in European history, always put much value on their own development and their own survival and was not forced to reduce the appreciation of their own nation. Surely there were also other sides, including towards Germany, but there was no Nazi fascism (apart from the Vichy complicity) in France, and the fact of the existence of the latter in Germany affected to this day the national consciousness in our country and puts it down by serving as a kind of billets, which is always swinging, when it comes to suppress legitimate national concerns. This is not the case in France. As a result of this, there too, the resistance against the decomposition and disparagement of the own nation can express itself much stronger, though it has there allegedly now been an albeit small majority in favor of gay marriage, which is, however, peddled mainly by the media like that.


So the situation in Europe is very complicated and requires a great deal of Overview and prudence of the progressive revolutionary forces to arrive at correct conclusions and also implement this in practice.


In our country there are, fatally enough, apart from us almost no left-wing forces, representing the economic progress, which actually is a prerequisite, if not even guarantee, for the overthrow of capitalism. They all behave as environmentalists, that is in the evasion of the bourgeoisie, to escape the contradictions by abbreviating its own development and its own progress, finishing it partly or largely, by floating both in the international progress of the productive forces, and especially the international exploitation and to maintain it - no matter of the means - and to draws one’s hope from that. Revolutionary forces representing the advanced class in our country can only do so internationally, because although the objective world development actually gives them buoyancy, and should give you this country, currently in a practical organizational respect one is pretty forlorn.



What does it mean in practice, if Mrs. Merkel speaks of the transformation of Europe?


What this means practically is a prelude already demonstrated by the closing down, the mothballing of nuclear energy in Germany. But that's just the beginning. Merkel justified her program with the changing role of Europe among the continents around the world. That this position is changing, is about to change, and has long since changed, is an indisputable fact. What is debatable, however decided, is the program, how one has to stand up or, better said, how to meet this change .


The countries of Europe had, seen historically, an initial role for the whole world in terms of democracy and economic development, including development of capitalism. But not only that. Also for the theoretical formulation and development of resistance against capitalism, by the theory of the proletarian revolution, Europe has such an initial role. Marx and Engels lived in Europe, Central Europe, and have developed this theory. And this has spread around the world and also yielded different undeniable and still impacting practical consequences in practice. The Russian Revolution and the Chinese one are perhaps the largest and most striking results and documentation of this fact, while there have long since been some changes there again, respectively a lot has been overthrown.


Also in Germany there was since the end of the nineteenth century and in the last one a strong revolutionary movement that put it among others in the form of various organizational successes. Of course, the reaction was not idle and has drawn out of pocket the resistance against that: Nazi fascism. In this context, this has mainly to be seen. The suppression and prevention of a proletarian revolutionary upheaval in Germany has been its real task, which has been promoted internationally by all imperialist forces. This too is a incontrovertible fact and can be followed in various documents and results. The racist excesses of counter-revolution, although their effects have to be deeply condemned and are devastating, are in comparision something of secondary importance.


But now there is to be seen historically a reversal instead from the side of bourgeoisie. It uses the latter to this day for for paternalism and for bringing the country under their heels, one can even say the German nation. And whenever in this country revolutionary forces stir up and stir up too much in the eyes of the bourgeoisie, then comes this stick and eventually there will be fabricated something, hidden or revealed at an agreeable time, whatever - the most recent example is an eloquent testimony for that - to put things in their favor to get back on track.


In Germany, therefore, since this time there is, in a certain way, a dual task for every revolutionary movement: in a sense a dual role: on the one hand to put the class struggle, to make the interests of the working class and the toiling masses the destination and try to push it through, especially nowadays with an international outlook, and on the other hand, as just explained, the link with the national question and to afford the responsibilities that arise from it. The latter question is currently of extremely increasing urgency, because the bourgeoisie has already launched their next maneuver in this respect.





Homosexualism as a special case can be tolerated, homosexualism as a socially accepted so-called sexual orientation with equal rights is an insult and affects the substance of human society.


I do not think that one can reduce the question of the recognition of homosexuality as equal only to the question of the nation and the understanding of it. This goes much further. It's about the cohesion of the society itself, even ultimately to the question of human sexuality or its destruction.


The cohesion between man and woman, which is the closest cohesion which exists at all, namely the love between man and woman and that it creates new life. That is to say, the human core of the whole society. Destruction of the one is laying the seed for the destruction of the entire society. This has nothing to do with the fact that you now want to cheer about any religions here, so far as Catholicism also rejects homosexuality. That's nonsense, so it has nothing to do with cheering religion but quite elementary with the conditions of the people among themselves, the ratios of the two (different) sexes to each other, their polarity. However it has something to do with the question if you condone the perversion and even socially recognize it or not. If you do the latter, you destroy the cohesion of society, except that on top of that one blocks out the further development, in the long run. So it's a very basic human and cultural issue that plays a role here, and not just a social or national issue.


In this question it is secondary, in which social context one puts, for example, this basic relationship among the different sexes, whether one ever does, if you do that in a very rigid way, as in many civil societies or if the rigidity is attenuated a little, this is quite trivial. What is crucial is that with this legislation, the aberration which of course is quite possible, as an exception, is declared here as a case of normality and hence this de facto abnormality is given a weight, which undoubtedly must play a fundamental role in the development of human society.


This also applies to other issues, too. One can e.g. not reduce everything and anything to the advancement of technology. Just as you can not only wage wars only with drones, you cannot only produce people by means of Seed Banks. This is not pssible in the long run. Such agents may work in an exceptional case, but not as a rule as the norm, as cornerstones for the cohesion of a society. In this respect, such a launch would have the opposite effect, the breaking-apart and destruction of the whole of human society in the long run.


So we are talking about a very basic cultural issue, and there are apparently in France a lot of people who also somehow feel that and also defend themselves so massively against this plan of their own government in terms of "marriage for all" , i.e. equal status of the so-called homosexual partnerships with (civil) marriage. Above all, the adoption of this law is controversial and rejected by a very large number of French people. In fact, herein lies an essential core. It concerns namely precisely this fundamental relationship "mother, father, child (ren)", or just husband and wife and one (or more) of this compound or another resulting child (ren). Which is thus destroyed by such projects as the rule, and that is also what people in France massive scale to millions, driving on the road to rebel against it, against this project. French citizens were obliged to declare their state representatives what constitutes a family: "a child with a mom and a dad," read the banners on it, and not with two mommies or two papas, or other structures. That is the fundamental point here, not whether from such a relationship emerges a child and then maybe this relationship breaks apart. The latter is secondary. It does not affect the core of the original social cohesion of a society.


In a modern society, it is of course the free choice of a couple, a man and a woman, if a child comes from their relationship or not. This stands not up for debate. But it is not the free choice of such a society, if you explain it as a social principle of equal rank, for example, that two men take a woman to be a surrogate mother who will then bear a child for them, or whether one of two women gets planted in a seed from a man, so that the two women have a child. Such a thing is perverse. And no one can tell me that such a "family" will not affect the child in his head which is growing up in his whole sentimental feeling.


The entire coupling with the adoption law is an expression of the way that it is basically a natural aspiration of the people, whether man or woman, to procreate and raise one or more children. But why should we do it that way, by this opportunity to virtually "borrows", just to have one. Since you can also become a professional educator and raise many children. That is really better.


What you give for such a child in such a gay "family"? What on cultural issues? The questions imposing are like that. What sexual culture is taught a child there? One can not assume that it has no effect if a child grows up with two women, from which it gets every day taught that these supposedly love each other and therefore grope and grope and sleep together in one bed, etc., etc. I mean, one could almost be so cynical as to say that in this way, in fact, homosexuality would get an opportunity to "procreate". But that is a form of denaturation. If one imagines the practice: the child asks where I come from, anyway? What then are the two mommies to answer? The daddy loves another dad? What should a toddler - children ask such questions probably pretty early - conclude from this, if you please? And what with only two "Papas"?


Homosexuality among men, a "culture" of arse-fucking is disgusting of their physical expression here, that you can never recognize. And the Community of two women masturbating together is not a replacement. But you also do not need a replacement if you just tackle it right from the beginning.


No, perversion is perversion and remains perversion, even when societies have recognized their alleged "equal rights". I can araise a child alone who was born out of a connection with a man who was separated from me or of whom I have separated myself. So what, that's quite commonplace in modern society today and in most cases - although perhaps not necessarily desirable, yet not impossible, and is now practiced a million times. What does not go is to get together with a woman and to masturbate together in front of my child, or at least in its knowledge, or, in the case that I have no child to leave me or the other woman getting planted a seed, so then it becomes a child, which then grows up in such that Environment. And if you take me to the scaffold, I will never change that view, because that goes against human nature, destroys them. The one is holding high the humans and the other is perversion and destruction. To explain such a perversion as normality is itself a kind of crime against humanity.


Add to that something else, that there is the tendency to pedophilia and everything related to it. Because what you yourself "give" there as a homosexual, against children, is basically nothing else. It plays a role that is quite clear, what example children are getting from you by your life in this respect. Not without reason the way the age of the "partner" for the gay community plays a significant role - a fact which is often hidden from the public.


Well, you could probably represented that this was anything but a private matter, belong to the genital area of each individual. Sure it is. But who was it here first to put forward the slogan: "Being gay is political"? These were the Greens, or its predecessors, the Alternative List in Berlin, which first placed that in their program in the Berlin election in 1985 so as part of their program. They have thus made policy, and this policy has just a very specific sense, a very specific goal, which is not acceptable.


The issue of homosexuality is and remains a social issue and not caused by nature, hereditary or other question of a natural predisposition. How could this become reality? And how should these have procreated themselves, so that one has it as a natural heritage in oneself? It would not work, homosexuality can at best be "reproduced socially", by spreading itself by means of a kind of so-called equality laws as they already exist in some European countries or are in preparation. And so we're back at the starting point, the fear of the supposedly unrestrained procreation of humanity, their unrestrained growth, a reason for some reactionary forces and members of the exploiting classes within these societies giving them such headaches. The question is: why? What is it, what they fear so much?


Many years ago I once saw a beautiful picture, it came from the then-revolutionary China and represented a young woman who was carrying her baby on her back in a little basket, and in her hands she carried a gun and ran with it into the battle [1]. Exactly that has been very stimulating. It certainly was not a baby, which was obtained from any Seed Bank, and where a woman has let the seeds use to have a child and raise this with another woman. Surely something can happen sometimes when a couple can only enter in this way to an offspring. But a couple that is just man and woman and not man and man or woman and woman. The latter is directed against it and keep everything up. This is grown exactly on the breeding ground of those who are against the social development that exudes from this above image, and feel obliged to put up a fight against that: This is counter-revolutionary, judged by its substance here, and against the revolutionary transformation of society and must accordingly be fought and rejected.


All over the world the seed is a symbol of fertility. This to fuck into an asshole, to put it very roughly to express, is actually a humiliation. Socially recognizing such has nothing to do with emancipation or progress in the least. The opposite is the case. A society that is confused with such emancipation is pretty far down.


And where you want to stay with this kind of actual "Des-emancipation" anyway? Soon it then will read "emancipate" the rape of women or lust murder. Let us emancipate also cannibalism! Where you want there still draw the line? What one has ever for criteria to draw such boundaries? Belgium's Dutroux says hello!


If all this is resolved, then we have the destruction that is needed by the exploitative society at this stage, and even every day brings that forth. Then we have child abuse, trafficking, human trafficking, sexual perversion and murder. But what is no longer needed, are any Nazi biker gangs that operate clandestinely under the eyes of the state, you can then save, because then there is the state itself that has reached this level.




If someone asks why at present just a socialist government in France wants to push such laws, then it must be recalled that the Social Democracy of the various European nations in the history repeatedly allowed at crucial points telltale breaks, toward bourgeoisie, which were not to be taken lightly and have already caused a very distinct language of criticism. This includes, in addition, the pandering to the nobility as well as the recognition of homosexualism by Bernstein and Co. at the end of the 19th Century, and of course, the granting of war credits in August 1914 for the German Empire, now almost 100 years ago, as well as the treacherous and later temporarily open fascist role in the twenties of the last century to the German revolution of 1918/19, as well as much other inglorious examples in the following. Social Democracy has always shown towards the reaction a more ambiguous character coming to the recent role of offering themselves as a servant or acting as an increasingly individual oppresser and exploiter in the last century and , above all, in the first decade of the current century (sua Schröder and successors.) It must not be forgotten, but there have to be drawn much more extensive and principal conclusions from the part of the left forces in Europe and also in our country, what they have been so far unable to do adequately. But this must be done, the coming development of further aggravating of contradictions in all areas allows no other choice.


Group Neue Einheit,   Maria Weiß
04 /29-30, 2013


[1] Apparently, my memory has deceived me a bit here. It is not a gun but a pitchfork what the young woman is carrying there. But it does not detract from the militant appearance of the image.