• RSS feed

Bernd Rabehl: American Democratic Dictatorship is Merely Another Form of Fascism

May 15th, 2009 | By | In Earlier, Interview

Prof. Dr. Bernd Rabehl
Prof. Dr. Bernd Rabehl

How was Germany Occupied, Subjugated and Colonized Under the Guise of “Denazification”

Berlin University Professor Dr. Bernd Rabehl, closest associate of Rudi Dutschke (leader and spokesman of the left-wing German student movement of the 1960s), is regarded by the followers and critics alike as the “most important theoretician of the 1968 student movement in Germany”. One of the first genuine dissidents in the West who fought against both left and right-wing dictatorship, Rabehl asserts the U.S. hegemony has destroyed freedom and culture in Europe, under the pretext of spreading democracy and “American way of life”.

“American war against Serbia was first and foremost directed against Russia. What I don’t understand is why did the German government allow itself to be drawn in the war against Serbia. Because, one of the most important tasks for Germany should be precisely building good relations with Russia. Germany has missed a historical opportunity — we already fought the blood soaked wars with Russia, it is the last minute to finally start a long-term policy of peace with Kremlin,” Rabehl told Nikola Živković, Belgrade journalist.

Q: Together with Dutschke, you have created the concept of the Green Party. What do you think about that political party today?

A: Present-day Greens are indistinguishable from the liberals. They defend the interests of lawyers, judges, architects… They were active in the student movement in 1968, but today they too enjoy the highest standard of living, immersed in materialism. At the world stage, they became the chief advocates of an imperial idea. I’m including here the former German Minister of Foreign Affairs Joschka Fischer, although he didn’t play a significant role in the 1968 student movement.

Present-day Greens unconditionally support the U.S. and Israel policy. They are in no way disturbed by the fact they protested against the American imperial policy in Vietnam in 1968, while today they support the United States imperial policies everywhere. I assume some of them were bought and some were blackmailed.

Q: Rudi Dutschke would say: “If we don’t provoke, no one will pay attention to us”. Today too, it doesn’t do without provocations…?

A: There is no other way, we must provoke, but only within the bounds of law and constitution. There are so many taboos today, especially in Germany, subjects one is prohibited to even think about! Veritable crusades are lead against those who dare to violate those taboos.

Dutschke and I always spoke about the need to liberate Germany on a national level. We were against the American policy. We never lost sight of the fact Germany is not free, it is an occupied country.

Q: How would you define present-day Germany?

A: As a democratic dictatorship. The proof is the widespread corruption and affairs only shreds of which are allowed to reach the media. The power is in the hands of a clique which is slowly but surely extinguishing the last benefits of democracy. There are no real disagreements between the political parties — there is only a ritual and circus staged for the wide population, where the TV carries a Bundestag “debate” about the social problems, for example. The voters go to elections, but they really do not decide about anything. Two leading political parties are being sold to the voters in the same way the best known TV or car brands are sold. The voters are asked: “Sony” or “Philips”, “Volkswagen” or “Peugeot”?

“Democratization” as Leveling all the Cultural and National Differences

Q: Jürgen Habermas [German sociologist adhering to American pragmatism] called you and Dutschke the “left fascists”…

A: Neither Dutschke nor I are in any shape or form the “left fascists” — we could perhaps say that for Goebbels.

Habermas attacked Dutscke in 1967, but not as a professor who uses arguments, but as a denunciator. He wasted no time to declare Dutschke a state enemy number one. In such a situation, critical thinking becomes useless. Habermas simply asserts that everyone who criticizes United States is a “left fascist”. Habermas supported the bombardment of both Serbia and Iraq, he is an ideologist of the ruling socio-liberal clique and, as such, he was given countless awards by the establishment in Germany and West in general.

Q: You say the European countries have no sovereignty, that they are in a vassal relationship with Washington. Does that include Germany?

A: Even Brzezinski has admitted this. In addition to the economic, monetary, military and technological superiority, United States are striving to impose some sort of civilizational, ideological hegemony — an “American way of life”. This term involves not only the way of life, which boils down to consumerism, but also the “industry of culture”. The main goal of American “culture” is destruction of the traditional European culture. The US is striving to destroy the old Asian cultures too, mainly the culture of China, India and Japan. United States are “democratizing” — leveling all the cultural forms. When Washington speaks about the “end of history”, it wants to say it plans to ensure and secure American hegemony for all the time.

Q: That, of course, is impossible…

A: Of course. American ruling establishment is no longer maintaining the culture of dialogue and critique. There are only phrases, commercials, pictures offering new products. What dominates is the neutral, non-political tone. Over ten American aircraft carriers are cruising the world seas at all times, in the state of readiness 24/7. Only United States can afford such a pricey luxury. Their superiority and riches have a fascinating appearance. But our European or Chinese memory is much longer than Washington itself and we know very well from the history that no superpower can last forever.

Q: Where does the danger lie for Washington?

A: Not in the outside enemies, but on the inside. In the past half a century the non-European immigrants have flooded United States, so the white, European population will soon become a minority. The most numerous workers will be from Latin America, and the economic and scientific elite will consist of the Asians, primarily Chinese. Brzezinski is also expressing fear that in the near future “American” elite will become Asian. The only question is when. Some say in 20 years or so, the others are convinced this will happen sooner.

Debt to American Banks Made European States Easy Prey to American Imperialism

Q: Let’s go back to our Europe. After 1945 it has lost sovereignty…

A: United States even today have the right to intervene in the internal affairs of every European Union member state, and especially in Germany. It is not necessary to use military force for this. How was that achieved? After 1945, German elite went through the process of re-education. US was also exerting influence over the policies of German syndicates and political parties.

Q: When did the decisive American influence on Europe take place?

A: This influence started with the First World War. England and France were buying war supplies, wheat, machines in United States. American banks approved credits for purchase of these goods. England, France and the other Entente powers were indebted by the American banks and American government. After 1918, these debts represented the basis for American influence in Europe. After 1918, a defeated Germany was also given credits by the American banks. This was felt already in 1919, during the Versailles Conference, where the new European order was being created.

The U.S. Dictatorship — Reducing Collective to a Mass of Impotent Consumers

Q: Tell us more about the “re-education” of Germany…

A: After Germany was militarily defeated in 1945, American occupation forces organized consultations and meetings with American sociologists, psychologists, economy experts and anthropologists. A number of German Jews were involved in the project, as well as German emigrants (mostly social-democrats), who spent the war years in United States. The main subject was how to solve the “German question”. Some 2,000 scientists were involved in this project, which was headed by the Organization of Strategic Services [OSS], controlled by the American military leadership stationed in Germany.

The OSS had a task to describe, as precisely as possible, the economic, cultural and social situation in conquered Germany. Still, there were disagreements among the scientists.

Q: Who were the prominent critics of this project?

A: Two philosophers gained prominence among the critics of the blind copying of American model: Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno. They started from the premise that totalitarian dictatorship which existed in Nazi Germany does not represent some specifically German case. There is a democratic dictatorship in United States, which managed to prevent the conflicts between the social organizations and classes, simply because all of them became a part of the regime. Instead of confronted classes, in U.S. there are only consumers. There is no collective, only individuals who buy and spend. The entire industry is involved in satisfying the needs of consumers: media, commercials, advertising, market, sports and show business. In that way the individual is more thoroughly encompassed and controlled then it was ever possible in the authoritarian society of the Nazi Germany or Soviet Union under Stalin. The mobilization of the masses in American society is carried out far more efficiently, because there, as opposed to the Nazi regime, there is no need to ever reach for the enforcement of the state apparatus. The “values” promoted by the advertising agencies represent an ideal of every American citizen.

Q: This was also the position of Herbert Marcuse, the main ideologue of the 1968 student movement?

A: Marcuse fascinated us with the radical ideas. According to him, the Nazi movement wasn’t a specifically German product, but a logical consequence of a developed industrial society. The Nazi dictatorship and American hegemony are not two opposed social systems, they are rather the two forms of the authoritarian power system. Hitler was mobilizing masses with immense military parades, American type of democracy achieves this mobilization much more completely and less expensively with TV commercials, sport competitions and spectacles, where the people are reduced to the faceless mass, the audience.

Scientists as Controllers and Denunciators

Q: Who were the advocates of the concept which opposed Horkheimer, Adorno and Marcuse?

A: This group was headed by [American sociologist] Talcott Parsons. He advocated the view according to which the American society was a result of “productive symbiosis of democratic ideas and institutions”. He claimed that, unlike Germany, American society has succeeded to successfully repress the “reactionary forces”. According to Parsons, that is why the US managed to develop democratic dynamics in politics, economy and in culture, and that is why this type of democracy should serve as a blueprint for Europe.

This line of thinking sees the main task of sociologists, politicologists, communication experts and psychologists in pedantically analyzing the state of society, in order to give a timely warning to the political and economic leaders in case of a national discontent.

Therefore, the scientists become the carriers of the covert control and the hegemony of the system. They believe they can forecast the crisis, so the ruling elite shouldn’t worry. Scientists are also employed in state services, in the ministries, police force, political parties, army, secret services… The scientist’s job is to find and expose the opponents of the system, and then to persuade them every struggle is predestined to fail. In short, every resistance to the existing American system is futile. If they do not succeed to persuade them, the state scientists utilize threats and denunciations. In Germany after 1968, this role was given to Jurgen Habermas.

Q: What tasks have these American experts set before themselves back in 1945?

A: The aim of the project was to replace the Nazi elite, to reshape the people’s psyche and destroy the German national tradition. They mostly succeed.

Power-Hungry Establishment Served by Dishonorable NGOs

Q: Some of your buddies from 1968 are today ministers…

A: I was shocked when I saw how quickly people can discard their ideals, literally overnight, and step in the roles of “important politicians”. I’m horrified by the barefaced hatred of these people towards their own German nation. Tossed in the garbage bin are the great achievements of the German workers’ movement, German conservatism and liberalism. I, on the other hand, believe the European culture can only exist as the sum of different, national cultures, and not some amorphous mass drowned in the common cauldron as a unified “Coca-Cola culture”.

Q: In today’s Germany, each opposition party which calls for national tradition is labeled “extremist” or “neo-Nazi”. How does one defend oneself from the rampant branding?

A: With the clear and precise language, with the force of arguments. The ruling parties and non-governmental organizations which serve them are showing that the danger of a new totalitarian society is coming from themselves.

After the fall of the Berlin wall, we have more and more obvious concentration of power in the West. The capital, media and politics represent the “holy trinity” of the unchecked power not only in United States, but also in Europe. The most influential Westerners are most often resembling the Warsaw Pact leaders. In order to preserve privileges, establishment is using manipulations and denunciations, exerting efforts to criminalize every attempt at true opposition. “Political correctness” also serves this purpose. In this, the non-governmental sector plays a very important, dishonorable role. This particular maneuver discourages every attempt to think for oneself and suffocates a desire for national freedom. The very recalling of national history is instantly stigmatized as the “right-wing radicalism”.

History as a Tool in Demonizing the Enemy of the Day

Q: Germany took part in the NATO aggression against Serbia. It did not take part in the war against Iraq, but today German troops are present both in Afghanistan and now even in Lebanon…

A: In 1966 Washington was forced to give up on the idea of sending German soldiers to Vietnam. Today the slogans “Germans to the front!” are becoming ever louder. German soldiers, of course, are not taking part in the interventions as an independent factor which would take care of its own national interests, but as the cannon fodder — the more Germans get killed, the more American lives will be spared. This is regarded as the Germans still paying off the WWII debts. After 1945, Germans were reared to become the “nation without tradition and culture”. It is easy to manipulate such nation. German political elite feels no responsibility whatsoever for their own country.

Q: Do you view NATO bombardment in the same context?

A: Yes, quite. German media also took part in the propaganda war against Serbia. Together with German politicians, our media outlets were actively involved in demonization of the Serbian state. They simply compared it with Nazi Germany. It seems that for such people history exists only to allow drawing of the cheap parallels, in order to be able to successfully demonize the enemy of the day.

For example, German television showed the mound of corpses from Auschwitz as an illustration of what Serbia allegedly could do… And all of it, of course, in the name of “human rights, protection of minorities and justice”. Therein lies the cynicism of the “leader of the free world” and the alleged advocate of the freedom of media.

Q: How was it possible to bomb a capital of a European state at the end of 20th century?

A: In this case Germany must have resisted American requests. After all, it violated its own constitution, which prohibits Germany to conduct wars, and this bombardment didn’t even have a UN mandate.

Secret Services Blocking Movements for Reaffirming Cultural Identity

Q: Your political engagement hasn’t been unnoticed. What is the goal of your political activism?

A: I am fighting to finally have a dialogue opened. The process of European unification shouldn’t have only economic but, most of all, a cultural dimension. This cannot be achieved with the European political elite and its bureaucracy. I am fighting for the European cultural identity in which the main role will belong to the European nations. Of course, I’m perfectly aware this cannot be achieved by an individual. Foreign secret services operating in Germany and other EU states are doing all in their power to block this process. This is especially true for the secret services from allegedly friendly states, the most active of which in Germany are the American and Israeli secret service — CIA and Mossad.

Comments are closed.