Amnesty International is just another imperial tool, just like Jihadis. They perform their assigned duty. Germany is controlled by structures set up by the Empire, from media to deep state structures and everything in between. Empire has its own destructive logic, utterly alien to the rest of us. EU, Euro and the rest of European integrationist institutions were architected to serve Empire, not Europeans. This nature can be easily discerned by looking at the fruits of their labor. From wokism, zero carbon to replacement level immigration, needless wars, covid,…, these are all vectors in the war on all of us. Gifts of Empire. Imagine East India company still existing and being in charge of the West.
Post WWII Germany was supposed to be thoroughly de-industrialized. The only reason it wasn’t was the existence of the Soviet Union. Once the CCCP disappeared we’ve entered into a new era. Empire had no reason to be nice, to allow rising standards of living. "Good times” had to come to an end.
There is a lot that is wrong regarding Amnesty International, and many angles it can be attacked from. First it was all about prisoners of conscience and perhaps also political prisoners, then became generally more anti-torture, then it focused strongly on death penalty anywhere and anytime, and then it started being obsessed with stuff like “access to abortion”. However, this fanatical pro-Israel screed says much more about NZZ than about AI, I am afraid, especially at the current time. In the parallel universe of post-war German-speaking countries, a rare feat was achieved: everybody from “far left” to “far right” is “standing with Israel”. Even more fascinatingly, nobody is bothered with this uniformity of thought... but then again, maybe this comes naturally to the German psyche. I am reminded of a pretty good description of how this insane consensus was carefully imprinted into the said psyche in a newspaper I am normally not too impressed with:
»The flip side of west Germany’s accommodation of Nazis was what Améry called an “obtrusive philosemitism”. (...) But the philosemitism was also a strategic mode of self-regard. Writing from Jerusalem in April 1961, Hannah Arendt reported that the Germans present at the trial of Adolf Eichmann, were “displaying an unpleasant overeagerness and finding absolutely everything wonderful. Enough to make you throw up, if I may say so. One of them has already flung his arms around my neck and burst into tears.”
In his writing on the trial of Eichmann, the scholar Daniel Marwecki described how visions of Israel as a new embodiment of Jewish power also awakened dormant German fantasies. A report by the West German delegation to the Eichmann trial marvelled at “the novel and very advantageous type of the Israeli youth”, who are “of great height, often blond and blue-eyed, free and self-determined in their movements with well-defined faces” and exhibit “almost none of the features which one used to view as Jewish”. On 7 June 1967, after the six-day war, the newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung greeted Israel’s victory with an editorial titled “Der Blitzkrieg Israels”. This phrase, associated with the Nazi assault on Europe, was then emblazoned on the front pages of Die Zeit and Der Spiegel (which commented on German blood donations for Israel with “Aryan blood flowed for the Jews”). The newspaper Die Welt regretted German “infamies” about the Jewish people: the belief that they were “without national sentiment; never ready for battle, but always keen to profit from somebody else’s war effort”. The Jews were in fact a “small, brave, heroic, genius people”.
Axel Springer, whose eponymous company publishes Die Welt, and who was among the major postwar employers of superannuated Nazis, boasted after the six-day war that he had published Israeli newspapers in Germany for six days.«
Arendt’s “enough to make you throw up” is indeed a perfect description of the phenomenon.
Thank you for the reference and the quote by Hannah Arendt--it is spot-on (and then some).
Fun fact, that Guardian piece was written by the same Pankaj Mishra the NZZ journo™ chastised for being, well, not philosemitic (sic) enough.
Setting that aside, you make two points I'd like to respond to:
First, the parallel universe notion of German-speaking countries--I had a chat with a German friend the other day, and while he long since left Germany, he told me that where he came from (small town in the Ruhr area), a Jewish community was cobbled together after WW2 by a survivor; after the Cold War ended, German gov't policy enabled tens of thousands of people who claimed to be Jews from the former USSR into the country, handing them citizenship and subsidies; these reportedly took over the Jewish community in said small town, grew to 1,500 people, and are so 'different' from those Jews who were there before that the founder eventually left the community in disgust. Funny that, eh? (I note, as an aside, that my friend, himself of Catholic background, is married to a descendant of Hungarian* Jews whose grand parents had emigrated to the US before WW1; as to the asterisk, meant is Hungary in its pre-1914/18 borders; my friend's wife's ancestors hail from what was known as Upper Hungary--today Slovakia). Needless to say, my friend pointed to the utter depravity of the German gov't doing this, Berlin's never-ending and above all unquestioning support for whatever Israel does, and the fact that those newcomers (the Jews from the former USSR) simply take advantage of the gullibility of Germany's troubled ways of dealing with its past.
As to the second aspect, you're so correct about the trajectory of AI from individuals to groups of people. In this, the trajectory both mirrors the overall push towards collectivism during the past roughly 200 years (doesn't matter if that would be fascism or socialism--meant are the meta phenomena--as both are group-ish ways and means of perceiving the world) and the massively distorted way this history is typically presented: the simple story of good vs. evil, with the former winning, is basically nonsense, but since it's so deeply engrained into the collective (sic) psyche, it's hard, if not impossible, to do anything about it. Just an example: a few weeks ago, I brought Wolfgang Schivelbusch's otherwise excellent 'Three New Deals' (2007; orig. Entfernte Verwandtschaften, 2006) to the readers' attention in which the author drew very careful parallels between Italian-style fascism, National Socialism, and FDR's 'New Deal'. While itself a worthwhile and highly pertinent comparison, what's omitted 'even' (sic) from Schivelbusch's treatise is the fact that former US president Herbert Hoover, writing in his memoirs (3 vols., 1951-52), considered FDR's policies--for which he is remembered so fondly in the United States--with the word 'fascist'. Other contemporary commentators, most notably John T. Flynn, were far less charitable to Mr. Roosevelt (and his wife, said to be a grifter), but since the purging of dissident voices in the mid-1940s, these issues remained well beyond 'polite society'.
Basically, Marx was wrong with his prediction of world revolution; Weber was way more accurate (esp. in his Protestant Ethic), but what both 'prophets of modernity' understood --albeit the latter way better than the former--was that industrialism's future had to be collectivist due to issues of scale: mass production presupposes the eventual creation, via amalgamation of mores, attitudes, and habits, of mass society, which must be managed by the powers-that-be. It's hardly surprising that the role model of Lenin's Soviet state (sic) was imperial Germany's WW1 command economy (this also inspired others, incl. the German industrialists who later paid Hitler); the New Deal's main aspects, the NIRA, was similarly conceived, if not a re-enactment, of the US's WW1 managed economy, which can be said to have never ended since: even though the NIRA was eventually declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, by 1938, FDR had decided to funnel gigantic sums towards arms and weapons to prepare for war. The 'permanent war economy', or 'military Keynesianism', never ended. In fact, the 1940s magazines and journals are quite replete with references to what the West should do like Germany…
Long story short, the fact that the present West looks more nazified than in 1945 can be explained rather without many problems (with the latter only arising if you point out these inconvenient truths).
Amnesty International is just another imperial tool, just like Jihadis. They perform their assigned duty. Germany is controlled by structures set up by the Empire, from media to deep state structures and everything in between. Empire has its own destructive logic, utterly alien to the rest of us. EU, Euro and the rest of European integrationist institutions were architected to serve Empire, not Europeans. This nature can be easily discerned by looking at the fruits of their labor. From wokism, zero carbon to replacement level immigration, needless wars, covid,…, these are all vectors in the war on all of us. Gifts of Empire. Imagine East India company still existing and being in charge of the West.
Post WWII Germany was supposed to be thoroughly de-industrialized. The only reason it wasn’t was the existence of the Soviet Union. Once the CCCP disappeared we’ve entered into a new era. Empire had no reason to be nice, to allow rising standards of living. "Good times” had to come to an end.
I'm making over $20k a month working part time. i kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so i decided to look into it. well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. this is
what i do..... Just COPY and OPEN My Name
There is a lot that is wrong regarding Amnesty International, and many angles it can be attacked from. First it was all about prisoners of conscience and perhaps also political prisoners, then became generally more anti-torture, then it focused strongly on death penalty anywhere and anytime, and then it started being obsessed with stuff like “access to abortion”. However, this fanatical pro-Israel screed says much more about NZZ than about AI, I am afraid, especially at the current time. In the parallel universe of post-war German-speaking countries, a rare feat was achieved: everybody from “far left” to “far right” is “standing with Israel”. Even more fascinatingly, nobody is bothered with this uniformity of thought... but then again, maybe this comes naturally to the German psyche. I am reminded of a pretty good description of how this insane consensus was carefully imprinted into the said psyche in a newspaper I am normally not too impressed with:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/jan/30/israel-and-the-delusions-of-germanys-memory-culture
»The flip side of west Germany’s accommodation of Nazis was what Améry called an “obtrusive philosemitism”. (...) But the philosemitism was also a strategic mode of self-regard. Writing from Jerusalem in April 1961, Hannah Arendt reported that the Germans present at the trial of Adolf Eichmann, were “displaying an unpleasant overeagerness and finding absolutely everything wonderful. Enough to make you throw up, if I may say so. One of them has already flung his arms around my neck and burst into tears.”
In his writing on the trial of Eichmann, the scholar Daniel Marwecki described how visions of Israel as a new embodiment of Jewish power also awakened dormant German fantasies. A report by the West German delegation to the Eichmann trial marvelled at “the novel and very advantageous type of the Israeli youth”, who are “of great height, often blond and blue-eyed, free and self-determined in their movements with well-defined faces” and exhibit “almost none of the features which one used to view as Jewish”. On 7 June 1967, after the six-day war, the newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung greeted Israel’s victory with an editorial titled “Der Blitzkrieg Israels”. This phrase, associated with the Nazi assault on Europe, was then emblazoned on the front pages of Die Zeit and Der Spiegel (which commented on German blood donations for Israel with “Aryan blood flowed for the Jews”). The newspaper Die Welt regretted German “infamies” about the Jewish people: the belief that they were “without national sentiment; never ready for battle, but always keen to profit from somebody else’s war effort”. The Jews were in fact a “small, brave, heroic, genius people”.
Axel Springer, whose eponymous company publishes Die Welt, and who was among the major postwar employers of superannuated Nazis, boasted after the six-day war that he had published Israeli newspapers in Germany for six days.«
Arendt’s “enough to make you throw up” is indeed a perfect description of the phenomenon.
Thank you for the reference and the quote by Hannah Arendt--it is spot-on (and then some).
Fun fact, that Guardian piece was written by the same Pankaj Mishra the NZZ journo™ chastised for being, well, not philosemitic (sic) enough.
Setting that aside, you make two points I'd like to respond to:
First, the parallel universe notion of German-speaking countries--I had a chat with a German friend the other day, and while he long since left Germany, he told me that where he came from (small town in the Ruhr area), a Jewish community was cobbled together after WW2 by a survivor; after the Cold War ended, German gov't policy enabled tens of thousands of people who claimed to be Jews from the former USSR into the country, handing them citizenship and subsidies; these reportedly took over the Jewish community in said small town, grew to 1,500 people, and are so 'different' from those Jews who were there before that the founder eventually left the community in disgust. Funny that, eh? (I note, as an aside, that my friend, himself of Catholic background, is married to a descendant of Hungarian* Jews whose grand parents had emigrated to the US before WW1; as to the asterisk, meant is Hungary in its pre-1914/18 borders; my friend's wife's ancestors hail from what was known as Upper Hungary--today Slovakia). Needless to say, my friend pointed to the utter depravity of the German gov't doing this, Berlin's never-ending and above all unquestioning support for whatever Israel does, and the fact that those newcomers (the Jews from the former USSR) simply take advantage of the gullibility of Germany's troubled ways of dealing with its past.
As to the second aspect, you're so correct about the trajectory of AI from individuals to groups of people. In this, the trajectory both mirrors the overall push towards collectivism during the past roughly 200 years (doesn't matter if that would be fascism or socialism--meant are the meta phenomena--as both are group-ish ways and means of perceiving the world) and the massively distorted way this history is typically presented: the simple story of good vs. evil, with the former winning, is basically nonsense, but since it's so deeply engrained into the collective (sic) psyche, it's hard, if not impossible, to do anything about it. Just an example: a few weeks ago, I brought Wolfgang Schivelbusch's otherwise excellent 'Three New Deals' (2007; orig. Entfernte Verwandtschaften, 2006) to the readers' attention in which the author drew very careful parallels between Italian-style fascism, National Socialism, and FDR's 'New Deal'. While itself a worthwhile and highly pertinent comparison, what's omitted 'even' (sic) from Schivelbusch's treatise is the fact that former US president Herbert Hoover, writing in his memoirs (3 vols., 1951-52), considered FDR's policies--for which he is remembered so fondly in the United States--with the word 'fascist'. Other contemporary commentators, most notably John T. Flynn, were far less charitable to Mr. Roosevelt (and his wife, said to be a grifter), but since the purging of dissident voices in the mid-1940s, these issues remained well beyond 'polite society'.
Basically, Marx was wrong with his prediction of world revolution; Weber was way more accurate (esp. in his Protestant Ethic), but what both 'prophets of modernity' understood --albeit the latter way better than the former--was that industrialism's future had to be collectivist due to issues of scale: mass production presupposes the eventual creation, via amalgamation of mores, attitudes, and habits, of mass society, which must be managed by the powers-that-be. It's hardly surprising that the role model of Lenin's Soviet state (sic) was imperial Germany's WW1 command economy (this also inspired others, incl. the German industrialists who later paid Hitler); the New Deal's main aspects, the NIRA, was similarly conceived, if not a re-enactment, of the US's WW1 managed economy, which can be said to have never ended since: even though the NIRA was eventually declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, by 1938, FDR had decided to funnel gigantic sums towards arms and weapons to prepare for war. The 'permanent war economy', or 'military Keynesianism', never ended. In fact, the 1940s magazines and journals are quite replete with references to what the West should do like Germany…
Long story short, the fact that the present West looks more nazified than in 1945 can be explained rather without many problems (with the latter only arising if you point out these inconvenient truths).
References to Shivelbusch may be obtained here: https://fackel.substack.com/p/nordic-paradox-income-equality-and