The wilful closing of the Western mind

Andrew Bolt

Thilo Sarazzin is coming to Australia:

Sarazzin is about to visit Australia to speak here:  Book here.

You Can’t Say That: Freedom of Speech & the Invisible Muzzle

Olive Marc Hartwich is worried when a country does not dare to even check the facts before shooting a messenger such as Thilo Sarrazin, since hounded from his directorship of the German Bundesbank:  The wilful closing of the Western mind

But its not only Germans and EUro Dhimmies who go down the road of no return. Thanks to the progressive perverts who are currently ruining Australia we are facing a similar totalitarian future here:

Costello warns: the free press is being threatened

Oliver Marc Hartwich/  The Australian

The PC empire strikes back

FORMER career civil servants and central bankers seldom have star potential. Their work rarely excites the public and their pictures do not usually appear on front pages. This would have been Thilo Sarrazin’s fate as well. A former state treasurer in the city of Berlin and director of the German Bundesbank, Sarrazin was mainly known to political insiders.


  • Sharia law at work in Australia
  • JooLiar Shrillard hates Newscorp/Murdoch: Julia Gillard today again tries to turn the News of the World scandal in Britain into political advantage here, saying News Ltd papers here have ”hard questions to answer”.     Gillard is angling to smear and potentially muzzle a media outlet that has been critical of some of her most disastrous and irrational policies.Gillard, in her desperation, is trying to intimidate critics and scapegoat media outlets. Be very wary is she attempts to translate her mearing into an inquiry – and new laws.  Gillard smears the Murdoch press, Andrew Bolt

All of this changed last August when he published the book Germany abolishes itself (Deutschland schafft sich ab). Within months the provocatively titled tome of 464 pages, laden with statistics and footnotes, became the best selling non-fiction book in German post-war history. More than 1.5 million copies have been printed to date. Its author developed into an unlikely media star whose name recognition in Germany now surpasses the Pope and the chancellor.

Sarrazin’s media success may be unlikely but it can be explained. In a media society governed by political correctness, he did not play by the rules. Perhaps because Sarrazin was used to speaking his mind behind closed doors he believed he could also get away with it in public. As it turned out, that was too optimistic an assumption.

The main points Sarrazin made in his book were neither particularly new nor were they factually incorrect. Like many authors before him, he pointed out that German society is ageing and shrinking because of low birthrates. He also offered a blistering critique of the welfare state, which he claimed had created a persistent, uneducated underclass.

Sarrazin then dared to suggest that due to the availability of welfare entitlements for the poor and career incentives for the rich the great majority of children are now born to parents from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

Finally, he explained how Germany’s haphazard immigration system had failed to attract high potentials and instead became exploited by poorly educated migrants. The additional point that Muslim migrants are segregating from mainstream society, again backed up by unambiguous statistical data, was the icing on the cake of Sarrazin’s assault on everything that the guardians of political correctness regard as sacred.

The media and Sarrazin’s former colleagues in the political class were quick to condemn the book and its author. The empire of political correctness was striking back.

Before the book had even been released, Chancellor Angela Merkel opened the attacks on Sarrazin. “The book,” she declared, was “not helpful”, as if that had ever been a requirement for new publications. Of course, Merkel had not read it as she was frank enough to admit. Neither did she intend to, as she told a newspaper weeks later.

What was the slogan of George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth in Nineteen Eighty-Four? “Ignorance is strength.” Quite.

Politicians from Sarrazin’s own Social Democratic Party accused him of “economism” and “borderline racism”. Protestant church leaders condemned the book’s “cynical view of humanity”. Left-leaning intellectuals protested against Sarrazin’s alleged eugenicist, biologist and social Darwinist views.

Judging by the reactions he provoked, Sarrazin had turned himself from a respected member of society into a political pariah overnight. The witch-hunt did not even stop the chancellor and the federal president from pressuring the Bundesbank, still a formally independent institution, to sack its board member. In the end, however, it was Sarrazin who resigned from his position because he could no longer stand the stress, but not before being formally acquitted by the bank of all allegations of professional misconduct. In this way he also spared his employer from becoming further embroiled in the scandal.

Despite the whole affair it had triggered, the book at the heart of the debate is a remarkably sober account of Germany’s social, economic and political problems. Reading through it, it is hard to understand how this dry and often technical analysis could ever have triggered such passionate reactions. But maybe that is because at the time few commentators gained an unfair advantage over their colleagues by actually reading it.

In this sense, the Sarrazin debate is revealing about the political climate of Germany. Apparently, it is enough to touch on a few taboo subjects to prevent a reasonable discourse. From an Australian perspective, however, Sarrazin’s purported crimes against political correctness are hard to understand. With most of Sarrazin’s positions he would find himself in the bipartisan mainstream of Australian politics.

Welfare reforms in Australia were controversial when first proposed. Started under the Hawke and Keating governments, they were extended under John Howard. Today, a welfare state based on mutual obligations and the principle of employment first are shared by both main parties.

In a similar way, Australia’s basic immigration policies are not disputed between Labor and the Coalition, despite the excitement over illegal arrivals. Both sides of politics recognise that for migration into Australia to be successful it is important to ensure that potential migrants have the language and professional skills necessary to succeed in Australia. Nobody would consider it racist to say that a basic proficiency in English should be a requirement for prospective migrants.

It is quite likely that with these two very basic propositions on welfare reform and immigration policy, widely accepted across the Australian political spectrum, you would be considered an extremist in Germany. The rules of political correctness as applied in many European nations now consider it discriminatory to ask whether migrants can economically contribute to their host societies. And to question the unconditional right to welfare payments is seen as an assault on human dignity.

When a society can no longer seriously debate political issues, controversial as they may be, it is not just a blow to freedom of speech. It also undermines a nation’s capacity for economic reform. Truths may sometimes be painful and feelings may be hurt, but a society that cannot stand vigorous debate risks becoming stale and stagnant.

Sarrazin was not a dangerous extremist but just worried about his country’s future. Rightly so, as the reactions to his book show.

Oliver Marc Hartwich is a research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies. Thilo Sarrazin will be speaking at the centre’s Big Ideas Forum on August 1. To register

5 thoughts on “The wilful closing of the Western mind”

  1. The Australian “SHARIA law has become a shadow legal system within Australia, endorsing polygamous and underage marriages that are outlawed under the Marriage Act….”

    Not only Sharia law – it is the word of Allah:

    65:4 allows to marry pre-pubercent kids
    and have sex with them 33:49

    4:3 “…Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four”

  2. For many months after the publication of the book, German TV talk shows invited various multi-kulti enthusiasts, fifth columnists and collaborators to talk about the book and its possible repercussions.

    While the critics were loud and voracious, I began to notice that what they said did not seem to agree with what was in the book. Since the book was in German (and most of the so-called ‘offended’ people were, by virtue of their non-integration into German society, unable to speak or understand, let alone read, German) the aggrieved parties were guided by what these people on television said that the book said.

    These well meaning PC-idiots, were offended for the immigrants, for the Muhammedans, for the Türks!
    These people would NEVER have been offended if the PC-Is hadn’t told them they should feel insulted. On one occasion Sarrazin dared to contradict and say that “The book does not state that …”, and was told that this is what people understand, perhaps he should have been clearer in his phrasing.
    However, on being pushed, this antagonist admitted that he had never read the book either – but he had read what the Newspapers said that it was about – and that was bad enough.

    The real tragedy here, is that people are willing to go in front of a camera and not only condemn what they do not know, but also to be proud of their ignorance and to admit astonishment that anyone would bother to buy such a terrible book.
    Any suggestion that some people actually like to make up their own minds seemed to shock these ‘Gutmenschen’.

    Ah, Stanley Milgram would have been proud!

Comments are closed.