Far-Right Views Rising Fast in East Germany

Far-Right Views Rising Fast in East Germany


New statistics give a powerful warning about Germany’s response to a dangerous world.

The number of east Germans with far right or xenophobic views has increased dramatically over the past two years, according to a report published by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation on November 12. The percentage of east Germans with a “cohesive far-right world view” has more than doubled—from 6.6 percent to 15.8 percent since 2006—with most of the increase coming in the past two years. Meanwhile, in west Germany that percentage has fallen from 9.1 to 7.3.

“This trend is alarming,” the report states.

What the report termed “Islamophobia” is prevalent in both east and west. Over 56 percent completely or mostly agreed with the statement “Islam is an archaic religion, unable to adapt to the present.” The study also examined both “traditional” anti-Semitism and what it called “secondary” anti-Semitism. To measure secondary anti-Semitism, the foundation asked questions like, “Jewish people use the memory of the Holocaust to their own advantage”—which nearly 32 percent of respondents agreed with.

The report found that those in the east were more “Islamaphobic”—41.3 percent compared to 35 percent, but there was little difference in “traditional” anti-Semitism—12.6 percent in the east, compared to 11.3 percent in the west. In fact “secondary” anti-Semitism was higher in the west—24.9 percent, compared to 18.8 percent.

But why is right-wing extremism growing in the east? One of the report’s authors blames the economic situation, saying the far-right thinking is “strongly connected to a widespread feeling of hopelessness and lack of opportunity.”

While this is probably true, the study indicates there is something more to the figures than that. The percentage of east Germans who said their financial situation was very good or good rose from 36.7 percent in 2010 to 47.9 percent today. The percentage who said their situation was poor or very poor fell from 19.1 percent to 16.2. Unemployment in east Germany, as of February this year, was going down.

East Germany is unquestionably poorer than the west. Unemployment in the west is 6.2 percent, while in the east it’s 11.9. History has shown us that when times are bad, people can rapidly pivot to the right. This is happening right now in Greece. Those figures could explain why east Germany is further to the right than the west. But it doesn’t explain why east Germany has become more right wing, while its economy is improving.

Another possible factor is the surge in immigration. The net inflow of migrants to Germany in 2011 was the largest since 1996. In west Germany, where unemployment is around 6 percent, this may not have impacted people much. But with unemployment around 12 percent, east Germans may have responded more strongly as they saw foreigners taking jobs while Germans remained unemployed.

Perhaps most importantly, world conditions have deteriorated in the last two years. The euro crisis has gotten worse. The Arab Spring has allowed radical Islam to spread into North Africa and take over Egypt.

West Germany has had nearly 70 years of stability. The east only emerged from communism 23 years ago. With a shorter history of stability, combined with higher unemployment, the easterners may be more sensitive to the new dangers.

If this reading of the statistics is true, it paints an alarming picture. It shows that as world conditions become worse, and as radical Islam spreads, the German response is to turn quickly to far-right ideas.

As the world becomes more dangerous, watch for west Germany to move in the same direction.

Herbert W. Armstrong: Co-Founder of Kenyan University of Agriculture and Technology

Herbert W. Armstrong: Co-Founder of Kenyan University of Agriculture and Technology


Remembering the humanitarian work of Jomo Kenyatta, and the world’s unofficial ambassador for peace and his 15 sons from the Japanese Diet

On the morning of Aug. 22, 1978, while sleeping at the State House in Mombasa, father of the nation President Kenyatta died. That very day, Herbert Armstrong recollected, “I had visited with him … at his office in the State House in Nairobi and the better part of the whole day at his residence 35 miles outside Nairobi. … We had luncheon at his home with members of his family. He conducted us on a tour through a suburban self-help hospital, which he had built. He was, as am I, a staunch believer in helping others to help themselves—to help them get on their own feet so they can make their own way, rather than supporting others outright in pure charity while they do nothing to help themselves.

“Through the Ambassador International Cultural Foundation, we had undertaken to join with President Kenyatta in founding in Kenya a self-help school to help reduce the illiteracy of the country. He was apparently just my age—86, though he did not know his exact birth date. He was a very close friend—like two close brothers with Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia.”

As far back as 1974, preliminary work was well under way for public appearance campaigns featuring Mr. Armstrong in the country’s capital. A year later, on May 26, 1975, he wrote to co-workers: “I am seven miles high over the Sahara Desert flying to Nairobi, Kenya, for the next big campaign. We expect a large and very successful campaign there.”

After his arrival, he was greeted by President Jomo Kenyatta at the official State House. The president asked him questions about his work and mission in relation to seeking world peace. “President Kenyatta and I generated a warm friendship immediately,” Mr. Armstrong wrote. “We found that we had much in common in general philosophies and grasp of human conditions, right principles and concepts.

“Our first visit, almost an hour, was at his office in the State House. He does not live there, however, and the second visit was at his home, some 35 or 40 miles outside Nairobi. I met his wife and family. We were met at the airport on our arrival by his niece (whom he calls his daughter), and to a considerable extent we were guided and escorted by her during our two weeks in Nairobi. She and the president’s wife are going to visit us a little later in Pasadena, and they want me to try personally to induce President Kenyatta to visit Ambassador College at Pasadena. He never flies, but they feel that perhaps I may be able to induce him to make the flight.

“I still marvel at the favor God gives me in the eyes of the world leaders—a favor really needed to accomplish Christ’s great commission. … [I]t (Nairobi) may become a very important city to us, in terms of getting God’s work done in Africa” (co-worker letter, June 24, 1975).

Discussion then centered upon the Ambassador International Cultural Foundation (aicf). As Mr. Armstrong explained the aicf’s accomplishments, “the president was duly impressed by these concrete evidences of humanitarian concern for others and a definite manifestation of a willingness to help others to help themselves. We expressed our interest in establishing a permanent relationship with the people of Kenya in a project that would be meaningful both for the people and for us” (Bulletin, June 3, 1975).

The significance and far-reaching implications of this genesis of cooperative thought between Kenya’s founder and the unofficial ambassador for world peace must not be forgotten.

“And in Nairobi I had started a college with President Kenyata, back a little over six years ago; and we had made a certain small contribution through the Ambassador Foundation,” he reminded his audience in Ambassador Auditorium Nov. 27, 1982.

Mr. Armstrong had just returned from a trip to Africa that included a stop in Nairobi to speak before subscribers of his mass-circulation magazine, the Plain Truth, and a meeting with Kenyatta’s successor, President Daniel Arap Moi.

“And then those congressmen in the Diet of Japan who consider themselves my Japanese sons, as they call themselves. There were eight originally, and now there are about 15 who call themselves my Japanese sons; we have a lot of fun about that. But they got busy in the Japanese Diet and appropriated about 29 million United States dollars, or the equivalent in Japanese yen, for that college.”

“And now it is the Jomo Kenyatta College of Agriculture and Technology. And they built quite a college there. With 29 million dollars, they’ve been able to build quite a college. And they gave me quite a plaque, all carved in copper, as co-founder with President Kenyatta of that college. And it is quite a plant; they have many buildings, all new. They are not quite of the caliber of the buildings that we have here on the Ambassador College campus, but they are new. They are ultra-modern. They are very good. They are less costly in construction. But they have an auditorium; they have an administration building; they have a big science hall; they have a big home ec hall for women. They have greenhouses with all kinds of plants and things growing, because it is an agricultural college as well as mechanical. And they even have an athletic track, and they have many things. I was given quite a welcome there and presented with, as I said, quite a plaque” (ibid).

Today, just over 30 kilometers northeast of the Kenyan capital, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology is a bustling center of learning. In May 1981 it enrolled its first students and by March 1982 it was officially declared open by the president. Commencement exercises were conducted in March 1984 for its first Horticulture, Agri-Engineering and Food Technology graduates.

Those who travel the Nairobi-Thika Highway and pass by this institution are deprived of the memory of Herbert W. Armstrong, whose name is glaringly absent from the history section of the university website. Perhaps those in government or the university’s graduating students remember a white-haired patriarch who was so beloved by the founding father of Kenya that he would present him a plaque to formalize his participation, funding and co-founding of an institution patterned after the former Ambassador College, today perpetuated by Herbert W. Armstrong College.

Here at theTrumpet.com we continue to highlight the enduring global humanitarian legacy of Mr. Armstrong as our editor in chief follows in those footsteps of give as evidenced by the work of Armstrong International Cultural Foundation.

Germany’s Arms Trade With Algeria Explodes

Germany’s Arms Trade With Algeria Explodes

Getty Images

Proof that Germany is deeply concerned about the spread of radical Islam in North Africa.

Germany has rapidly stepped up its arms trade with Algeria since the Arab Spring swept across the region in late 2010/2011, a report by Der Spiegel on November 12 revealed. In 2010, Germany sold under €20 million worth of military equipment to Algeria. In 2011 and 2012, Germany has sold €400 million worth, and it’s underwritten a €2.13 billion sale of two warships.

Now, according to Spiegel, a subsidiary of Rheinmetall plans to build 1,200 Fuch armored personnel carriers in Algeria over the next 10 years. All of these vehicles are for the Algerian military.

That’s a huge increase in sales. Why?

Germany is using arms sales to try to build an anti-Iranian alliance. Germany has major arms deals with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Turkey is the world’s second-largest importer of German arms. Germany is deeply concerned about the rise of Iran and is arming Iran’s opponents across the Middle East—despite the objections of German media like Spiegel.

Since the Arab Spring, Iran has been spreading its influence across North Africa, into Libya and Egypt. What is causing Germany to become agitated “perhaps more than even the finances in Europe is what’s happening in Iran, Egypt and Libya,” said Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry in a recent address. A strong, radical Islamic presence on the Mediterranean is a major threat to Europe, he explained. “And you know, if you know anything about the history of Germany, that they’re doing something!” he said. “I can tell you that without even reading any reports.”

Germany’s arms trade with Algeria is just part of its response. This trade has exploded since the Arab Spring. This is more than Germany taking advantage of the situation to sell some more weapons to make a quick buck. South Africa’s defenceWeb reported that the warship contract took a year to negotiate. It was concluded in March this year, meaning Germany started negotiating in spring 2011, when much of Europe and the United States began to get involved in Libya. Germany chose to sit the campaign out and instead negotiate arms deals with Libya’s neighbor. It probably anticipated that siding with the rebels in Libya would push the nation toward Iran.

Germany’s long-term thinking and strategy is in stark contrast to America’s policy in the region that appears to merely react to events and have no overall plan.

Germany sees Iran’s spread throughout the region and is trying to build an alliance with Algeria to contain it. It’s also supporting France’s calls to intervene in Mali to stop the spread of radical Islam just to the south of Algeria.

Germany’s campaign to build such alliances was foretold in Psalm 83. That psalm is a key to understanding what is happening in the Middle East right now. It foretells that Germany would forge an alliance with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan and several other nations.

Algeria is not mentioned. This indicates that Germany will fail to bring Algeria on board. But it’s not for lack of trying. Germany’s arms sales to Algeria clearly show that it’s worried about Iran’s spread and is trying to curtail its influence in the Middle East and North Africa.

For more information on the Psalm 83 prophecy and Germany’s policy in North Africa, read our article “Next in Line, Please” from the latest print edition of the Trumpet.

Marijuana Vote Reveals Broken Judgment

Europe and the Arab League Recognize Anti-Assad Coalition

On Monday, foreign ministers from Arab League nations and from European states formally recognized the legitimacy of a newly formed Syrian opposition coalition.

The new coalition was made official just on Sunday, and is viewed as the legitimate voice of the Syrian people. It includes representatives from Syria’s disparate groups who are all battling to topple the regime of President Bashar Assad. The formation and recognition of the coalition will boost efforts to secure international support and weapons, which will be pivotal in the struggle to overthrow Assad.

Germany’s Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said the decision to create the coalition was an important and well-timed one. He also pledged that Berlin would back the coalition’s efforts to establish an alternative to Assad’s regime.

The decision of European and Arab nations to recognize the anti-Assad coalition is significant because Bible prophecy says that Europe will soon ally with a bloc of “moderate” Arab states, and that the bloc will include Syria. Recognition of this anti-Assad coalition may prove to be an important milestone in dislodging Syria from Iran’s orbit and thrusting it into this emerging bloc of nations.

To understand the details of these pivotal trends, read “Next in Line, Please” from the December 2012 issue of the Philadelphia Trumpet.

EU Plans to Create New Military Headquarters

EU Plans to Create New Military Headquarters


Key European nations want to establish a new headquarters, despite Britain’s objections.

France plans to use the European Union’s military mission in Mali as a “Trojan horse” to create an EU military headquarters, the Telegraph reported November 11, citing a “senior French Defense Ministry source.” France is also planning a “major offensive” to stop individual nations from being able to veto defense issues.

The report comes ahead of a meeting between Germany, Italy, France, Spain and Poland in Paris to discuss how to move forward on European defense.

Last year, Britain forced France to back down over plans to create a military operations headquarters (ohq). Now France is using a different tactic. Rather than pushing for the headquarters first, and then expanding Europe’s military operations, France is going about it the other way around. It believes that if the EU commits to more military missions, it will be forced to create a headquarters to manage them all.

“If you have three or four military operations under way it suggests there is an operational need for it,” the Telegraph quoted its source as saying. “The defense minister believes that at one stage the idea of the ohq will fall like a ripe fruit.”

Britain is still resolutely opposed to a permanent military headquarters. The Conservative spokesman on European defense, Member of European Parliament Geoffrey Van Orden, warned that France is pushing Britain down a “slippery slope” toward a European army.

But Europe is fed up with Britain’s stubbornness. In September, the Future of Europe Group—foreign ministers from 11 EU member states who met regularly at Germany’s behest—called for the removal of national vetoes over defense policy. It noted that some members of the group wanted to create a European army. Last month, Der Spiegel reported that “German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, together with his counterparts in France and Poland, is determined to promote cooperation on security policy in the EU.”

The plan to establish a military headquarters “is to be revived and implemented, even against London’s resistance, if necessary,” it wrote.

The EU’s foreign minister, Baroness Ashton, will support these plans, according to the Telegraph, despite the fact that she is British.

The Telegraph also reported that the EU is planning to send 200 to 400 “military support troops” to help train African Union forces in Mali, citing an anonymous European diplomat.

Key EU nations clearly want Europe to play a greater military role. Watch for this to happen, despite Britain’s objections.