Artikel-Schlagworte: „World War“

Hostility Towards Germans Part II: German Self-Hatred and Leftist Ideology

Written by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage  

Translated by J M Damon

<Following is a translation of a German blog posted at <>

[Part I of my lecture on “Hostility Towards Germans” dealt with the ideology that has resulted from the anti German narrative in the West.
I described how and why this ideology has always been and will always be inappropriate for Germany.
In the following section I discuss the consequences that necessarily derive from the adoption of this narrative by the Germans themselves.
In conclusion I discuss the role played by leftist ideology in the overall complex of hostility toward Germans.]

German Adoption of the Western anti German Narrative

As the result of the powerful effect of various venues of American propaganda following World War II, a cataclysmic shift took place in German political thinking. It was a shift in the direction of the Anglo Saxon ideology of revolutionary liberalism and later Marxism. In both cases it consisted of the acceptance of the basic assumptions of the revolutionary Meta-Ideology.

Among other things, this created a “We – You” differentiation based on ideology rather than ethnicity or national political basis.   The new norm was accepted as a matter of course, until “We” were no longer Germans or even the Europeans. “We” became a party in the global ideological civil war (“The West,” “Western Community of Values,” or “The Free World”). “We” became whoever shared revolutionary Utopian ideals.

Following the demise of the Soviet Union ever larger portions of the Left have come over to this “We,” as is quite obvious from the comet like careers of former “‘68ers”.

For the victorious powers, this new definition of the We-group, based on ideological allegiance meant a latent contradiction in their self-identity as nations. This was true not only for the Russians, who had fought more for Mother Russia than Communism (but whose victory served Communism more than Russia); it was also true for Americans and Britons. It was not easy to equate “My Country Right or Wrong” with the latest scheme to “make the world safe for Democracy.” As we have seen, these contradictions were just latent for the wartime Allies since they had fought as nations rather than as standard bearers for abstract ideas.

Among us Germans the contradictions were more than latent. They could not be ignored the instant we adopted the narratives and Utopian ideologies of our victorious enemies, as we did after the Second World War. A national “We Group” is a supragenerational community that includes past generations as well as those yet to come. The logic that compels a German Chancellor to participte in Allied victory celebrations in Paris, Normandy and Moscow implies that both world wars were battles in European and global civil wars.
They were gigantic struggles won by “The Western Community of Values” or simply “Democracy” (in Russia’s case, it was Utopian ideology as such) over the Forces of Darkness, and since “we” (re-educated, reconstructed Germans) belonged to this community of values, “we” were among the victors whereas „the Germans“ (i.e. the strange people which called itself „the Germans“), the embodiment of all evil, were the losers.

The German adoption of Western Ideology and of Meta-Ideology in general implies a loss of identification with our own VOLK. It compels us to consider our own VOLK as the enemy, to abhor ourselves as an outgrowth of evil and to hate our own forbears. Germany is the only country in the world that erects monuments to traitors and deserters, the only country in which it is considered exemplary to spit on the grave of one’s grandparents. The historical narrative of the victors – with its global political concepts, its highflown Utopian worldview – can never be the narrative of Germans who want to be German. If they adopt it, it will be at the cost of self-obliteration. The contradiction between being German and being part of a historical subject called „Western community of values“ is  unbridgeable.

The problem is underscored rather than solved by lame efforts to unite incompatibles in formulaic compromises such as “constitutional patriotism.”
This hostility towards one’s own VOLK is specifically German, as is illustrated than by the fact that the so-called “anti Germans” (as they call themselves!) comprise the only political grouping that refers to itself with the word “German.”  Not even the Neonazis do that, as they refer to themselves simply as “nationals,” emphasizing that they consider nationalism to be something good in itself – not only for Germans but for everyone. The anti Germans, by contrast, express the opposite wish: they want to eradicate the German VOLK, but not necessarily the very concept VOLK. Interestingly, they are attempting to do this through ideological rationalization, precisely what I identified as the foundation of anti German hostility in Part I of this series: The idea that Germany is (or was) the epitome of anti Utopian, anti globalistic counterrevolutionary force normally goes unstated except among anti Germans. My analysis is not far removed from that of the anti Germans; only the qualifying prefixes are reversed.

Leftist Ideology

Inner logic compels societies that support the fundamental assumptions of liberal Utopianism to quickly become involved with its hostile twin, Marxism – Socialism. In general terms we can refer to them both as Leftist Ideology. Whoever condemns society’s power imbalances on the basis that they are not founded in rationalism, and believes these imbalances are evil and must be stamped out, should not be surprised when the imbalance between rich and poor also comes under the crosshairs of criticism. Whoever champions freedom and equality as universally valid, and as basic values of society, has to deal with opposition to freedom in the name of equality. The Marxists who actively oppose capital because its power is not rationally legitimate but rather arises through automatism (derived from the nature of capitalism itself), leading to the mastery of one class over the other, rely on the same logic as the liberals who polemicize against church and king. In some regards Marxists are more consistent than liberals, since they condemn all social inequalities. For example, they condemn inequality between rich and poor; employed and unemployed; the citizen and the state; and between parents and children as well as majority and minority (either ethnic or religious).

From the point of Leftist ideology the more powerful party is illegitimate simply because it is more powerful. This implies that it should not be allowed to deal with the weaker on the basis of “merely formal” equality before the law, but must be actively disadvantaged. Correspondingly, from this point of view, it is not injustice to plunder the rich for the benefit of the poor or the employed for the benefit of the unemployed. Leftist Ideology assumes that the law and the state are repressive, since they use the same measuring stick to measure dissimilar entities, instead of causing what is unequal to be equal; and needless to say, there are no laws to protect the majority from the minority. On page 28 of “DEUTSCHE OPFER, FREMDE TÄTER” Götz Kubitschek and Michael Paulwitz cite a typically Leftist position asserting that racism against Germans cannot exist. This is because racism is a medium of repression that by its very nature cannot be inflicted on a majority by a minority because of the minority’s lesser social power to enforce its will.

In simple language this means that the “weaker party,” that is, an ethnic minority, is allowed to do everything, whereas the “stronger” (in Germany, the Germans) are not allowed to do anything, but must endure everything.
The power that is presumed to be stronger is automatically the evil power since it benefits from the alleged repression (that it also reinforces.)

Furthermore: since the mere existence of power disparity is the “evil” to be faced and fought, a belated “equalizing” injustice will no longer suffice.
The very basis of the power imbalance must be eliminated: wealth itself; or, as is especially pertinent to our theme, the ethnic majority must be eliminated.
From the point of view of the Left, a majority VOLK or ethnic group has no right to exist.

The Left is not satisfied with representing the interests of the “weak;” it is determined to delegitimize the “strong.” In our country the Left deligitimizes the interests of Germans, Christians, men, nonfeminist or nonlesbian women, whites, heterosexuals and gainfully employed workers. In other words, the Left opposes the interests of the majority and seeks to either force these majorities into the minority or else annihilate them altogether. This is the logic behind the policy of de-Christianization, de-Germanization, de-Europeanization, feminization and the promotion of homosexuality.
Only the gainfully employed cannot be abolished; however, it is permissible to pick their pockets, since they have placed themselves in an evil and repressive position just by existing from the fruits of their own labor.

It is self-evident that such a policy cannot possibly be democratic, since it is systematically directed against the majority. Thus leftist ideology naturally results in the propagation of demophobia (fear of the masses), de-democratization and coups d’etat. Of course it finds allies in minorities of every description.

All this has to do with the psychology of minorities in general, which is characterized by deep resentments. The minorities feel that the way of life of the majority, in which they are unable and unwilling to participate, should at least be spoiled for the majority. A good illustration of minority resentment is the bum who urinates in the vestibule of the bank. Racism against Germans is just one variation of this sort of resentment although a significant one.
Leftist ideology seeks to mobilize such destructiveness.

The Third War Against Germany

The crucial question to any Western conservative is why our nations seem to have completely lost their will to survive and flourish. The following text, first published by Judith in „Vaterland“, December 281h, 2010, highlights the methods with which one nation was made lose this will. So this article is not on German self-pity or on accusing the allied nations. Read what was done in Germany as a blueprint to be applied anywhere.

Translation by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage:

In his book „Die Psychologie der Niederlage“ (The Psychology of Deafeat), Thorsten Hinz calls it „the third war against Germany“:  The time after 1945 when after the bombs the psychological warfare started – a war that hasn’t stopped up to now. Hans-Joachim von Leesen names in his worth reading essay the institutions, the means, the methods and the compliant assistants.

The Re-education of the Germans as a Part of Psychological Warfare

Hans-Joachim von Leesen

The third war against Germany


„We will extinguish the entire German tradition.“

After the war Archibald McLeesh, then Deputy US Secretary of State, who had founded, in 1939,  the institution of the Psychological Warfare in the USA, at the Potsdam conference defined the aim of the re-education: to change the character and the mentality of the German nation, so that Germany, finally, a life without supervision could be permitted. This required inevitably  a treatment of the Germans comparable to that of a criminal in a modern prison. „We will extinguish the whole German tradition.“ At the end of this process, a German „Self Reeducation“ would have to stand (detailed in Schrenck-Notzing, Charakterwäsche, as well as in Mosberg, Reeducation).

„General psychic inferiority of the German human“

In the „Report of a Conference on Germany after the War“, worked out in Summer, 1944 by „Joint Committee on Post-War-Planning“ at the Columbia University, New York City, the timetable was found for the re-education of the Germans which became then an official directive on the American post-war policy. (reported in Mosberg, Reeducation.)

It was developed by scientists from the faculties of  medicine,
psychology, sociology etc.
The Swiss psychoanalyst C. G. Jung who belonged to the  spiritual fathers  had warned against making a difference between „decent and indecent“ Germans (cited in Mosberg, Reeducation). The Germans are  „collectively guilty“. The reason for this is a „general psychic inferiority of the German human“. In his view the Germans are „degenerated“. The only effective therapy was that the Germans were to be made recognise their guilt, and that they publicly confess being guilty  over and over again.

The Stuttgart guilt confession of the Protestant church of Germany

One of the first steps to this aim was the Stuttgart confession of the Protestant church of Germany (EKD). As the leaders of the German Protestant church which belonged predominantly to the „Confessing Church“ [Bekennende Kirche; a group of anti-Nazi theologians] tried to join the World Council of Churches that was being built up at that time, the condition was that they had to confess German guilt publicly. Secretary general of the World Council of Churches was of the Dutch Visser’t Hooft which had belonged during the war to the British Secret Service.

On the 18th/19th of October, 1945 the leaders of the German Protestants, from bishop Lilje and pastor Martin Niemöller to Dr. Dr. Gustav Heinemann, declared the desired confession, not only for the Protestant church, but for the German people as a whole, so, for example, also for the Catholics and those without denomination. (In detail the Kiel theology professor Walter Bodenstein in „Ist nur der Besiegte schuldig? Die EKD und das Stuttgarter Schuldbekenntnis von 1945/Is only the defeated guilty? The EKD and the Stuttgart confession of 1945“)

Press, radio, film

Over and over again, you are confronted with the re-educators‘ assumption that the collective guilt of the Germans had its cause in their biological disposition. This was to be imprinted on their memory until they are persuaded of it themselves. The instruments were the media, at that time above all press, radio, and film.

First of all, the media available in Germany  had to be removed. They were forbidden. The next step was to remove all men and women from public life who could have opposed to Re-education . Between 314,000 and 454,000 persons (the information in literature differ) disappeared in internment camps up to three years, without a basis in international law
and without accusation – from BDM [Bund deutscher Mädels = League of German Girls, Hitler’s girls‘ organization] leaders up to high ministry officials, from local group leaders of the NSDAP, to authors and diplomats.

The staff of the radio companies was dismissed, the leading journalists and publishers were imprisoned in internment camps. The German media were first replaced by radio stations of the allied military governments. What they had to publish was delivered by the occupying powers and their news agencies, in the US zone the DANA, later DENA, in the British under the direction of Sefton Delmer, a leading man of the PSW, the German news service = GNS. Newspapers and radio stations in German language were forbidden to publish anything but what these agencies provided.

After some time one loosened the personnel politicy and also hired journalists who were no emigrants, but were neutralised in the third Reich for political reasons. After one to two years the first editors trained by the occupying powers started working. (An impressive picture is delivered by the German first hour journalists Richard Tüngel and Hans Rudolf Berndorff in their book „Auf dem Bauche sollst Du kriechen“ that appeared in 1958.) The campaign in the US zone was headed by Leon Edel, later Eugene Jolas. The head of the press officers was the Intelligence Officer Alfred Rosenberg.

Strict supervision

The German journalists worked under strict American or British control. They had to implement tha strategy of psychological warfare. The crucial purpose was that „the Germans confessed their collective guilt, and that they were persuaded of their inferiority“, as Helmuth Mosberg writes in „Reeducation – re-education and licence press in the post-war Germany“ , his dissertation that also appeared as a book. „Every journalist had to be a reeducator“.

The German character is washed

In the long run, one couldn’t  feed the Germans only with newspapers and radio programs of the allied military authorities. Thus one searched for Germans who seemed suitable to run the newly founded newspapers. About that Caspar von Schrenck-Notzing reported already in 1965 in his basic work „Charakterwäsche“ which appeared again and again in new editions and recently in a revised version. The new German newspaper and magazine publishers should represent „the other Germany“, i.e. be people who differed from the present Germans clearly. Competence was secondary, compared with character.

The victorious powers assumed that most Germans had a wrong character because they had been shaped by their authoritarian families. What kind of men had to belong to the new élite had been worked out by a professional group of scientists under the direction of Max Horkheimer (we will meet him again as one of the mentors of the 68th revolt) and been presented in a 5-volume work „Studies in Prejudice“ , among whose authors were f.e. Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson, R. Nevitt Sanford. They wanted to uncover and to exterminate the prejudices from which the Germans allegedly suffered. Literally: „Extermination means re-education which is academically planned.“ With it „potentially fascistic individuals“ were to be uncovered.

Thus one searched for people in whose personality the values typical in Germany, like „externally correct behaviour, diligence, ability, physical cleanness, health and uncritical behaviour“ did not exist, because these qualities hide supposedly „a deep weakness of the own ego“. [No, this is not a translation mistake! The allied considered just such men qualified for leadership of German media who did not have these qualities. M.K.-H.]
The considered persons were asked, among other things, how their relation to father and mother was. One preferred men who had a broken relation to her parents, i.e. were not formed by the authoritarian German family. And they went forward with good conscience, as they regarded the Germans as ill, as patients who had to be cured of her paranoia. The new newspaper publishers and editors in chief were submitted to suitable tests, and if they turned out to have such broken characters, they were shortlisted.

So to speak, as a reward they received the licence for a newspaper or magazine, of course still supervised by the press officers. The new newspaper publishers avoided offending against the given rules, otherwise they would have lost the licence or their position. Most worked as requested, and even real beliefs played a role, as most people prefer being on the winnig side.

It goes without saying that the trials against the German ruling class and against supposed and real war criminals played a major part in the reeducation. The trial in the international military court of law in Nuremberg against the leaders of the Reich as well as the next ones of the American military justice were reported by the newspapers of the allied military governments. They had to make clear the collective guilt to the German population in all details, and at the same, to justify the allied war crimes as for example the aerial war against the civilian population.

Every journalist has to be an Re-educator

All these measures were in harmony with the main demand of psychological Warfare : to separate the enemy people from its leaders. This was already an aim of the allies in the First World War when the Kaiser was allegorized as a monster dripping with blood. All newspapers as well as the broadcasting company were subject to the principle that every journalist had to be an Re-educator. If he did not obey this, he ran the risk to lose his job. This explained not least the line loyalty of publishers and editors (in detail Mosberg, Reeducation). When in 1949 the Federal Republic of Germany was founded, the licensing of the press by the military government came to an end. But in the years from 1945 to 1949 one had educated a younger generation, which had passed through the school of the Re-educators supervised by the military governments.

This explains why today the German journalists,
though free in their judgment on single subjects, have to agree with some basic statements, f.e. the German collective guilt and Germany’s exclusive responsibility for the Second World War, however.


Doctor Schäuble’s governmental neuroses

by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage, first issued in German, October 1, 2009: Doktor Schäubles Staatsneurosen

If you want to know which ideology is the basis of this country’s immigration policy, it is illuminating to examine carefully what the responsible persons say about themselves. Wolfgang Schäuble, [then] Minister of the Interior, had recently in  „Welt am Sonntag“ a dispute with the immigration-critical Dutch sociologist Paul Scheffer. This debate deserves an extensive analysis. I concentrate on what Mr. Schäuble said, however I recommend  to read the whole discussion, not least because of the critical objections worth reading of Professor Scheffer:

Welt am Sonntag: Mr. Schäuble, since the fifties labour migrants came to Germany to a large extent. Is this immigration a success story?

Wolfgang Schäuble: Predominantly yes. One must realize, we recruited these people. Germany is, by the way, the country of Europe with the highest rate of population growth since the Second World War. On the one hand because of the refugees from the east and from the parts of Europe in which Germans had settled in former times. And then we received many refugees from conflict areas, more than other countries, for which the UN’s refugee agency praises us. We recruited the immigrant workers. Without them the economic development would not have succeeded at all at that time. Most are well integrated, but there is a not insignificant deficit in the third generation. Fighting this is an emphasis of our policy. But altogether it is a success story.

Paul Scheffer: (…) There is a consent in many countries that the immigration of immigrant workers was actually no success story. Neither for the receiving society nor for the immigrant workers themselves. (…) Also the migrants regarded themselves as immigrant workers and just not as migrants.

Schäuble: I must raise an objection. We have recruited the immigrant workers …

In these short both statements, Schäuble stressed three times that „we“ have recruited the immigrant workers. We will still see that this is so important to him because it means that „we“ are responsable for the consequences.

Moreover it is untrue (and promptly corrected by Scheffer) that without immigrant workers „the economic development… would not have succeeded“. Although untrue, it will be an important component of the self-description and the view on history in a future Islamic Germany:  We do not owe our economic development to the technological and scientific performance of Germans, nor to centuries of educational tradition, nor the high and consciously maintained qualification of our craftsmen, let alone all the sweat that the industrialization of Germany, starting from the 19th century, and the reconstruction after 1945 had costed. We owe it to the immigrant workers, who are so well integrated that one wonders why they did not manage to put this integration also into the hearts of „the third generation“, and why we suddenly have to deal with „not insignificant deficits“.

The concern about this is certainly more than balanced by the fact that „the UN’s refugee agency praises us“.

What does it actually mean that Schäuble regards the first generation as „well integrated“? This means that „integration“ to him does not include to raise one’s children in the spirit of a positive relationship to Germany and the Germans: If the first generation had been, in this sense, well integrated, the „deficits“ of the third would be hardly explainable.

I assume, for Schäuble, being „well integrated“ means not to become an extremist or terrorist. „Integrated“ is who does not cause trouble to the government. The trouble some migrants, particularly Muslims, cause to the native citizens don’t interest the government, as long as it does not feel the consequences itself  at the election day.

Schäuble: (…) We know that there are problems today , we know the deficits. Therefore our policy is completely clear: We will repair first the deficits of integration and afterwards open the job market more  if necessary .

Now he has used already three times the word „deficits“. We do not know yet which deficits he actually means, but we know that at least he knows them – how reassuring -, and that he (with „our policy“) is going to „repair“ them: the megalomania of a technocrat who it does not realize that humans are no machines and „integration deficits“ are no engine damage to be „repaired“. He ignores the fact that 67 million native Germans, four million Muslims and eleven million non-Muslim migrants and migrant children are no orchestra, waiting for being conducted by Mr. Schäuble, and that society is not an automat, into which one puts empty phrases (like coins) to see „ integration“ roll out.

In addition, and just by the way, we learn that thereafter, if something like integration will thus halfway have succeeded, one learns from the errors of the past not to avoid them it in the future but, on the contrary, to open the job market, i.e. to repeat them at the first opportunity . „Integration“ of the ones is thus just the preliminary stage to the immigration of the others. The Minister tells us officially, although just en passant, that he intends to make mass immigration permanent, and that he pursues a policy to urge the Germans in their own country into a minority position.

Welt am Sonntag: All migration processes of history show that the circular model does not work. If humans go elsewhere, then many of them stay. Did the problem in Germany not arise because we thought too long, the migrants would go back?


Schäuble: I found an understanding which corresponds to my own, of what immigration countries are,  in a book of a Dutch professor (laughs): countries which select immigrants. In this sense, Germany is no immigration country. I have always said so. This does not mean that we haven’t many immigrants. And therefore I rather talk about integration, because this is what we have to  manage. We had for example substantial problems with the integration of the [German] refugees at the end of the 40’s. 1949 96 percent of the refugees said that their relationship to the local population was not good. This integration has succeeded today. But with respect to the immigrant workers later we surely failed  to reflect sufficiently.

Compared to the magnificent achievement to integrate Germans in Germany the integration of Turks should be a children’s game – provided that one „reflects sufficiently“.

Above all, however, we did not well enough in the task to integrate their children and grandchildren adequately – this is where I see the large omissions of the German society.

Integration is not something the immigrants owe society, but the other way round – probably because „we have recruited the immigrant workers“, and owe them „our economic development“.

If I, however, say: The balance is bad, it was not worthwhile, then I strengthen those who tell me at the Stammtisch [the pub where normal people talk about politics, M.K.-H.]: „We always knew, out with the foreigners.“

In plain language: He cannot admit that the balance is bad, because otherwise he would strengthen those at „the Stammtisch“, i.e. simple people, who indeed always felt that immigration does not enrich anybody but the immigrants themselves. These simple people must not be „strengthened“, and therefore one must declare the truth they see a lie. One notes that the Minister does not even refer to his allegedly superior insight (what rulers normally do, if necessary to justify their rule). Thus he doesn’t claim to be right, he only wants to hold down those who are.

Welt am Sonntag: What was made wrong, and when?


Schäuble: … Since the 70s, we do not make immigration, but  integration policy in Germany. Good or bad, one can argue. We had a debate over the right of asylum, but that is something else. I also think that we must pursue, in the future, a more purposeful policy. But before doing so, I must do away with the deficits of the past years. In this respect, I do not push away the guilt from us at all .

„We“ – and one may assume that this „we“ does not mean the political class but the German people – are guilty to have caused the „deficits“ mentioned for the fourth time – he really speaks of „guilt“-, and therefore „we“ must do away with them, approximately like a dog owner has to do away with the small pile. The same people whose opinion is ignored have to lie in the bed that  the Schäubles made for them.

World on Sunday: Where do you see successful examples of immigration policy?


Scheffer: It must concern…  what Sarkozy calls “immigration subi” and “immigration choisi”, an only suffered or an immigration that one deliberately chooses. On this one must reflect.

Schäuble: Of course we think about it! But I am against wishful thinking. And before we think too much about selected immigration , we should concentrate on repairing the deficits. (…)

For the fifth time „deficits“ are „repaired“.


Schäuble: (…) I as a Minister of the Interior must prevent – that is reason of state of Germany – that new xenophobia develops.

The Minister of the Interior believes it is a duty of the state to forbid and/or prescribe  its citizens their feelings, for example hatred of foreigners. Such an attitude is not pre-democratic – no absolutist monarch would have considered himself to be his people’s teacher -, it is totalitarian. The citizens are to be made want what they have to do. And that is not only a governmental goal – which would be bad enough  -, it is reason of state, i.e. the state must „prevent that xenophobia develops“. Why?

I cannot bear, as one week ago in Vorarlberg [Austria], 25 percent for a right-wing extremist a party.

The Minister of the Interior, member of a „conservative“ party is not familiar with the difference between right-wing conservative and right-wing extremist parties. To consider the FPÖ extremist is obviously grotesque. To declare it extremist may be smart tactics – though not the tactics of democrats, but of autocrats who use the apparatus of the state to muzzle dissidents.

Anyhow one should listen attentively when a Minister of the Interior, head of a highly organized armed power structure, says he cannot  „bear“ an election result, brought about in a perfectly democratic way.

So high numbers approximately for Le Pen were the starting point for Sarkozy to concern on immigration. I cannot bear also the development in the Netherlands.

In plain language the message to the German voters is: Don’t imagine that you are allowed to vote as you want – certain parties offend what I, Schäuble, define as „reason of state“. How the hell does he come to believe it is „reason of state“ to weaken the predominantly loyal state people in favor of  migrants whose  loyalty to the state is pretty often doubtful?

Germany would  immediately be suspected not to have learned from the experiences of the Nazi period. We are, more than anyone else, a burnt child.

If I do not want to impute the USA to have threatened Germany with a military intervention in the case of a right-conservative electoral success: Soberly regarded, the suspicion Schäuble fears is no more than an image problem, i.e. nothing that would affect seriously the „reason of state“, if one understands „reason of state“ in its traditional meaning.

Schäuble: We had – and I am proud of that – with the European election on 7 June the smallest success of xenophobic groups in Europe. Our efforts on improved integration are thus not completely futile .

One could suppose with better reasons that less the efforts on improved integration were successful, but rather those on criminalization and slander of the dissidents, and that they were so because a great many Germans internalized that strange ideology according to which not loyalty for the own nation, but the self-dressage in favor of others is a reason to be „proud“.

(…) We must include in our demographic as our social development all people in Germany.

Except, of course, the native Germans, in particular such which express themselves at „the Stammtisch“.

Otherwise we will be not able to secure a stable, tolerant development. And because of the demographic development we will have probably soon a higher need of immigration.

I don’t remember that the indeed threatening demographic development of Germany ever has been put to the agenda by politicians. There were no election campaigns on this issue, and nobody struggled for solutions. But  the demographic development is put to the agenda regularly whenever arguments for mass immigration are lacking. In other words: Immigration is one, if only apparent, solution, searching for a suitable problem.

Let’s reconstruct now Schäubles ideology from what he has said between the lines:

He worries above all about what others think of Germany, not so much about what is actually the case, or about whether the Germans themselves feel good with his policy; the same orientation at foreign perception, (think of his childlike joy about the praise by the UN refugee organization) can be read off also from its panic, Germany could be suspected not to have learned from the Nazi period, and his “pride” about the lack of success of „xenophobic groups“ .

If an individual made himself dependent on foreign perception and subordinated his own interests to the demands of others, then this person would be said to be neurotically disturbed.

Let’s consider, moreover,

  • how frequently he stresses that the Germans are guilty,
  • his inclination to credit the Germans‘ own successes („our economic development “) to foreigners,
  • his view that political judgment of German citizens is to be controlled by the government,
  • and finally his program aiming at mass immigration as a kind of permanent revolution as soon as the current „deficits are repaired “,

this amounts, in the synopsis, to an ideology, according to which the Germans are evil humans, who, standing on their own feet, could only do mischief; who should be subjected, therefore, to supervision from abroad and above; whose declarations of political will needn’t be respected by politicians; and who are literally to be educated by their government. At least for the transition period up to their scheduled disappearance as a people.

Schäubles „reason of state“ turns out to be a destructive neurosis, and the Federal Republic of Germany to be probably the only state of the world with an ideology, according to which the reason of state consists in the liquidation of the own people.