By Sabine BEPPLER-SPAHL

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Last week, news of a round-table agreement banning criticism of immigration in Cologne made headlines—not least because it caught the attention of Elon Musk. Seven parties, from the center-right Christian Democrats (CDU) to the SPD, Greens, and Left Party, had signed the so-called Fairness Agreement, pledging not to criticize asylum seekers or migrants during election campaigns.

The agreement has existed since 2017, but now, ahead of the municipal elections on September 14th, it has finally cracked.

The troubles began when the local CDU candidate distributed a leaflet protesting a planned asylum shelter in his Cologne inner-city constituency. “No to large-scale accommodation. For a safe, liveable borough,” read the flyer’s slogan. This enraged the guardians of the agreement—refugee organizations and ombudsmen—who complained the CDU was violating their sacred rule.

It doesn’t take a genius to understand that such an agreement is a gift handed to the AfD. Leaving the topic of greatest concern to a majority of voters exclusively to the populists is a sure way of losing support. As the British Telegraph observed, “AfD handed leg up as German parties agree not to criticize migrants.” The CDU, hoping to win the elections, knew it had to press forward.

“We will not retract any of these statements,” declared district chairwoman Serap Güler (CDU). “This refugee accommodation for around 500 people does not belong in this location, where there are already enough challenges and problems. In this respect, it is not helping people.” Embarrassed by its past adherence to this nonsensical and impossible agreement, the party felt obliged to justify itself with an official declaration:

We believe that objective criticism is part of a fair election campaign… accommodating refugees, many of whom are traumatized, directly at a drug and crime hotspot is not the most socially responsible solution. This criticism is legitimate, fair and humane.

It’s encouraging that this agreement—an especially restrictive and foolish outgrowth of attempts to quarantine the AfD and its voters—is finally crumbling and stands exposed. But the question remains: How could it ever exist, and for so long?

The multicultural capital

The answer lies in the bullying nature of Cologne’s urban Left. In truth, the city has long served as an informal capital of multiculturalism, making it a focal point of many of Germany’s problems.

The agreement emerged months after the city was shaken by the events of New Year’s Eve 2015. That night, several hundred women were surrounded and assaulted by large groups of men whom officials later identified as “Muslim men of Arab or North African origin.” It was the first time the downside and dangers of the 2015 mass migration became so starkly evident as ever more details of these terrible events were revealed.

But the event also highlighted another aspect of multiculturalism: the elite’s fear of their own citizens. For days, authorities sought to cover up the nature of the attacks. The city’s police chief claimed it was difficult to identify the perpetrators—a claim easily refuted by officers who were present that night. He and the local SPD-Green coalition came under such pressure that he was dismissed in the first weeks of the new year.

Cologne is also home to Germany’s largest mosque. This building, financed by the Turkish government’s religious affairs authority and opened by President Erdoğan, is one of Europe’s largest, capable of housing over 4,000 people. Its 2015 inauguration was no coincidence—the Turkish government chose Cologne not just for its significant Turkish population but because it could rely on the staunchly pro-multicultural creed of the city’s councilors, who approved construction despite fierce citizen opposition. (Erdoğan used the occasion to scold Germany for its alleged racism against Turks, while the chair of the religious organization DITIB, who accompanied him, was already known for his outspoken antisemitism.)

Neither the formation of numerous citizens’ initiatives nor protests from Turkish dissidents living in Germany or well-known personalities could prevent the city council’s approval. Among the critics was Cardinal Joachim Meisner, former Archbishop of Cologne, who warned, “We must remain vigilant to ensure that the areas made available to Muslims do not become territories where Sharia law increasingly takes hold”—a statement that caused outrage even within the increasingly progressive Catholic Church, whose speakers accused him of Islamophobia.

Another prominent critic was Ralph Giordano, a German Jewish journalist, author, and Holocaust survivor, who expressed incomprehension that such a large-scale project representing “the religious expression of a different and foreign culture” proceeded without popular consent. He argued there was “no fundamental right to build a large central mosque.”

But the multicultural creed has never cared about majority will. It was explicitly developed to shape, form, and silence local citizens, giving precedence to newcomers from abroad who were considered superior, fresh, and invigorating. This creed proved so powerful that Cologne’s former CDU mayor and city council bowed to the Turkish government’s demands, even against the wishes of many within the CDU’s own faction who opposed the construction.

The silencing imperative

The 2017 agreement to avoid negative discussion of migration represents the logical conclusion of such an environment. Rattled by mounting problems—a recent survey found 78% believe the city is in decline—the parties and politicians most responsible for this situation prefer imposing a culture of censorship.

But this self-censorship no longer works. For years, the AfD remained a small, even negligible party that Cologne’s multicultural urban milieu believed it could safely control and ostracize. In the 2015 and 2010 mayoral elections, the AfD gained barely 4% of votes. Though still below the national average, it now polls over 10%—more than doubling its previous result.

Voter turnout in Cologne has been alarmingly low—just over 50% in 2020 and only 40% in 2015. But the days when established parties could rely on prevailing without genuine majorities are ending. Even in this center of multiculturalism, voters who were formerly ignored are pushing back. If the CDU has begun carefully chiseling away at the old establishment consensus, it’s because it knows it cannot win elections without addressing people’s concerns.

As British journalist Brendan O’Neill wrote in 2016, following the Cologne New Year’s disaster, “The moral silencing wrought by multiculturalism is about suppressing politics itself—in politics’ truest sense of being a free, frank, conflictual discussion about values and the future. Multiculturalism is best understood as the sacralization of moral and cultural relativism.”

The populist awakening

We should celebrate the end of this stifling era. It is the rise of populism as a genuine political force that has forced the window of authentic political debate to creak open.

The absurd Cologne agreement might be under strain, but it remains in place. It should serve as a stark reminder to voters of how far the established parties are willing to go in imposing their preferences onto the electorate. Let there be no illusion: if populist pressure declines, then democracy itself is in grave danger. We can only hope that voters in Cologne will remember this when they go to the polls on September 14th.

Original article:  europeanconservative.com