THE GREAT COMMUNIST DECEPTION OF 1989/91
It was in September of 1989, when Moscow’s East European satellite regimes were already crumbling at suspiciously neat four-to-six-week intervals and a possible reunification of the two German states came into sight, that British Prime Minister of the day, Margaret Thatcher, reminded then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev at a lunch meeting in the Kremlin:
We do not want a united Germany. This would lead to a change to postwar borders, and we cannot allow that because such a development would undermine the whole international situation and could endanger our security.
Events steamrolled the nations of Western Europe, including Britain, nonetheless, giving way — ultimately — not so much to renewed pan-Germanism, but to a reunified Germany as a jumping-board for Moscow to get hold of the entire European continent and to strategically isolate the United States in the process. It was exactly this intent that was repeatedly expressed in those days by Gorbachev as well as Shevardnadze in their demand for a “Common European Home from the Atlantic to Vladivostok” and a new system of “collective security” for Europe; in other words, they were, and still are, dreaming of and working towards an all-communist Eurasia.
As no one in the West seemed to be aware of the root cause of the events of 1989, which was simply communist longrange strategy in action as explained and foretold in detail by top Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn long before 1989, things suddenly took on new and completely unopposed dynamics, both in Europe and in the world. After all, according to the general consensus, communism had “died”.
The European Community became a considerably tighter European Union. U.S.-Soviet relations were being ever more extended. The United Nations too began to ever more vigorously push for international “harmonisation”, using mainly their insidious schemes of “anthropogenic global warming” and “sustainable development”. And, almost over night, “ex”-communists from “formerly communist” Eastern Europe and then the “former” Soviet Union itself came flooding the West as instant-“democrats”, instant-“entrepreneurs”, as artists, athletes and certainly crime lords and prostitutes in the millions. Not to forget the newly founded Gorbachev Foundation (according to Christopher Story, in fact the International Department of the CPSU and as such even the former Comintern in disguise), that soon was to put up its headquarters at the Presidio in San Francisco, influencing the United States’ elites ever since. Finally, there was the gradual emergence of yet another spectre: that of Islamist terrorism; like all terrorism worldwide, a creation by Moscow and Beijing (which sadly applies also for the terror attacks on 9/11).
No doubt Moscow had intended a dissolution of NATO in exchange for their fictitious dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. This did not come to pass, although communism has meanwhile succeeded in turning NATO, to paraphrase Mao Zedong, into a paper tiger. Furthermore, they had envisioned a German reunification at a distinctly later date and only on the basis of being a neutral, socialist state. In this they failed as well, for the moment, though Gorbachev clearly stated at the time that the communists would hug (Western) Europe to death.
But, and this is the special thing about communism, they kept on pushing and deceiving and manipulating as they had always done in the past, being flexible in their day-to-day approach, but at the same time relentlessly focussed on their final objective of complete communist world dominion. Communists can be aptly compared to a crazed fanatical cult: their false concept has long discredited itself by endless misery, starvation, terror and death in the dozens and dozens of millions; their “economic theory” never worked once and never will; and yet, they won’t let go of their “sacred” goal of world revolution. The late British analyst Christopher Story once nailed it in an interview conducted by Bill McIlhaney: “They’re all out of their own minds and are instead in Lenin’s mind; which is not a very nice place to be.” This makes communists so dangerous, as they are — few individual exceptions aside, who sometimes do abandon their madness — simply immune to reality, let alone truth! It’s a collective mental disorder or, as the Romanian pastor Richard Wurmbrand termed it, collective demonic possession (and he knew what he was talking about after many years of cruel internment and torture in the prisons of communist Romania: he saw from up close the outright Satanic dimension of so-called communism).
Ironically, within the boundaries of their bizarre belief system, the communists function very rationally and methodically and with great vigour, discipline and patience. Their view on historical processes, determined by the illusion of evolutionary “progress”, has led them to believe that not only was such progress the natural dialectical outcome of societal antagonisms, but even that through the skilled application of (construed) dialectics the progress of their revolution could be accelerated: Hegelian dialectics as a sorcerer’s wand to shape world history; to be more precise, to bring down human civilisation as quickly and completely as possible, and so under the anti-Christian banner of the Cult of Man.
And despite all this, and despite all the experience and historical record witnessed by the non-communist world ever since the October Revolution of 1917, it was naïvely decided in 1989 that maybe the communists were now indeed capable of changing and letting go of their idiotic ideology, and maybe their “reforms” under Gorbachev were sincere. They were not. Of course not. Communists don’t just abandon their communism and join their eternal enemy, the “imperialist capitalist oppressor”, in allegedly exploiting and oppressing the “international working class”. And neither was the ruling Party nomenklatura toppled and executed. They stayed in power as before, only with a new democratic/free-market mask on their same old rotten faces. It was all brilliant deception, and mysteriously world communism after its alleged demise even quickened its expansion, mainly in Africa and Latin America, but also, through a constant shift to the left of the political climate, in the industrialised world.
Gorbachev was constantly making clear at every opportunity, and also in his 1987 book Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World, that they, the communists, would never turn off the road of communism, that they were merely about to “reform” their system within the ideological framework of Marxism-Leninism, and that “perestroika” was a word with many meanings, but was meant basically to be a revolution, a second Russian Revolution that was also to transform the whole world.
“Perestroika” even had an historical precursor, after which it was modelled: Lenin’s so-called New Economic Policy (NEP), introduced in 1921. In both cases the West was lulled into believing that communist ideology was weakening and that the country was returning to sound economics and a free and democratic society. And, sure enough, in both cases the Soviet state made great leaps forward, so to speak, all achieved by lies and deception, and was able to compensate its own economic malaise and technological backwardness by loads of money and knowhow magically streaming in, or as Lenin had brutally put it: The capitalists would sell the communists the very rope on which they, the capitalists, would end up hanging.
But the West was so drunk with having supposedly won the Cold War (and the communists were of course nourishing those illusions) and with seeing in front of it breathtaking, wide vistas of unprecedented economic opportunities, that the lie of “collapsible communism” was indeed prematurely carved in stone and no additional thought given to the underlying script of the events of 1989/91. Duped and deprived of its image of the enemy, the free world jubilantly embarked on a dead-end road to certain suicide, with iconic master of ceremonies Gorbachev all too readily showing the way.
THE GERMAN SITUATION PRIOR TO THE FALL OF THE BERLIN WALL
Ever since its formal foundation in 1949 and even by constitutional obligation, the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) had sought to overcome the political division into two German states. Yet, never would it have crossed the minds of Adenauer, Erhard or Kiesinger to sacrifice West Germany’s being a free society under the rule of law and strict checks and balances so in order to reach common ground with the communist East. On the contrary, the FRG didn’t even recognise the communist “German Democratic Republic” as a sovereign state, referring to it solely as the “Soviet Occupied Zone”, and rigorously claimed representation for all of Germany, East and West.
At least until 1972, when Moscow-friendly social democrat Willy Brandt (post-war Germany’s first socialist chancellor, who was also heavily involved with the Socialist International) set up with the East Germans the infamous Grundlagenvertrag (Basic Treaty), by which West Germany effectively granted East Germany full political recognition, along with the prospect of Wandel durch Annäherung (Change through Rapprochement), which sounded a bit like convergence on communist terms, given Willy Brandt’s great sympathies for the USSR (and that’s precisely what came to pass not only in the seventies under social democrat Chancellors Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt, but also in the eighties under conservative Chancellor Helmut Kohl).
GOLITSYN’S WARNINGS — SUICIDALLY THROWN TO THE WIND…
The following paragraphs are taken from pages 165–167 of Anatoliy Golitsyn’s second book, The Perestroika Deception: The World’s Slide Towards the Second October Revolution — Memoranda to the Central Intelligence Agency (London, New York: Edward Harle Ltd., 1995). They are part of an April 30, 1993 memorandum titled “A Warning of the Perils of Partnership With Russian ‘Reformers’ and ‘Democrats'”. Golitsyn, born in 1926, had been living, ever since his defection from the Soviet KGB to the West in December of 1961, under witness protection in the United States. His profound knowledge of a pan-communist grand strategic longterm design to deceive the West mainly by a soon-to-unfold ruse of collapsible communism was greatly welcomed by chief of CIA counterintelligence, James Angleton. However, both Angleton and Golitsyn were later purged in 1974/75, when then-CIA Director William Colby effectively decapitated the CIA counterintelligence. Discredited and ostracised, Anatoliy Golitsyn nonetheless kept sending memoranda to the respective Directors of Central Intelligence, analysing current developments and warning ever more desperately of a nearing grand deception on the part of the communist bloc that would play on Western hopes for peace as well as expectations of commercial profit and simply remove the image of the enemy from the eyes of the West. In 1984, he then published his first book, New Lies for Old: The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation (New York: Dodd & Mead), a veritable reference work that outlined the whole strategy of defeating the West by lies, subversion and subterfuge. As events began unfolding in 1989, Golitsyn was assessing in real-time what he had already been predicting with eerie accuracy throughout the sixties and seventies and, publicly, in New Lies for Old, giving clues as to what the communists were really up to and what the West should do to counter this much more dangerous phase of the revolution. Finally, in 1995, after the publication of The Perestroika Deception, Golitsyn gave up on his attempts to get his warnings across. He allegedly passed in late 2008, ironically weeks after the election of America’s first communist president. Here is that quote, that can’t be presented often enough (bold print by author Anatoliy Golitsyn/editor Christopher Story):
Similarly, current and future Western aid for Russia will fail to deflect the Russian leaders from their long-term objectives of world hegemony which they will continue to pursue in concert with the Communist Chinese.
While US policymakers are mobilising massive Western support for Russia and building up optimistic expectations of the future for democracy there, the same Soviet strategists as before are quietly carrying out their strategy. As this analyst has argued in previous Memoranda and publicly in “New Lies for Old”, the late Academician Sakharov under the guise of a “dissident” was used as an unofficial mouthpiece of the former Soviet régime before being officially “rehabilitated” and lionised under Gorbachev’s “perestroika”. In the late 1960s he went some way towards expressing publicly the essence of Soviet strategy, though without revealing that the developments he foresaw were deliberately planned. He predicted that in the period 1968 to 1980 “a growing ideological struggle in the socialist countries between Stalinist and Maoist forces on the one hand and the realistic forces of leftist Leninist Communists (and leftist Westerners) on the other will lead… in the Soviet Union… first to a multi-Party system and acute ideological struggle and discussions and then to the ideological victory of the (Leninist) realists, affirming the policy of increasing peaceful coexistence, strengthening democracy and expanding economic reforms”.
The period 1972 to 1985 would be characterised by pressure from the progressive forces in the West combining with pressure from the example of the socialist countries to implement a programme of convergence with socialism, “i.e. social progress, peaceful coexistence and collaboration with socialism on a world scale and changes in the structure of ownership. This phase includes an expanded role for the intelligentsia and an attack on the forces of racism and militarism”. In 1972 to 1990, “the Soviet Union and the United States, having overcome their alienation, solve the problem of saving the poorer half of the world… At the same time disarmament will proceed”. In 1980 to 2000, “socialist convergence will reduce differences in social structure, promote intellectual freedom, science and economic progress, and lead to the creation of a World Government and the smoothing of national contradictions”.
All Sakharov’s main predictions have so far been fulfilled with the exception of Russian-American partnership in solving the problem of the poorer half of the world and the creation of a World Government. What Sakharov, like the present Russian leaders, clearly had in mind was East-West convergence on socialist terms leading to World Government dominated by the Russians and the Chinese.
But ignoring the long-term strategy behind the developments in Russia, US policymakers have plunged into partnership with the so-called “Russian reformers” without realising where this partnership is intended by them to lead.*
Sakharov foresaw World Government by the year 2000. The question may indeed be on the agenda within the next seven years. Within that period, if present trends continue, Russia, with Western help, may well be on the road to a technological revolution surpassing the Chinese Communist “economic miracle” without loss of political control by the present governing élite of “realistic Leninists”.
A campaign for a new system of World Government will be launched at Summit level and will be accompanied by pressure from below, the active use of agents of influence and secret assassinations of leaders who are seen as obstacles. The campaign will come as a surprise to the US Administration. In the ensuing negotiations, the US President of the day will find himself facing combined pressure from the Russians and the Chinese. The Chinese will by then have adopted a “reformed”, pseudo-democratic system. In the course of the negotiations the Russians and the Chinese will begin to reveal their true colours, their fundamental antagonism to the free world and the threat they represent to it. The US policy of partnership with Russia will be exposed as bankrupt. Internally in the United States this will lead to divisions, recriminations and a search for scapegoats. Externally, the reputation of the United States as the leader of the free world will be irreparably damaged and its alliances, particularly with countries like Japan which have been pressured into helping the Russians out, will be jeopardised.
The US President will find himself without the finest armed services in the world. Reformed and cut back by budget reductions based on mistaken assessments of long-term threats, the services will be equipped for handling regional conflicts but will be unprepared for global confrontation.
US intelligence and counter-intelligence, if they survive, will have lost any remaining effectiveness from continuing financial pressure and a campaign of revisionist allegations like those that the CIA and the FBI were involved respectively in the assassinations of President Kennedy and Dr Martin Luther King.
Too late it will be realised that there have been no equivalent reductions in the power and effectiveness of the Russian and Chinese armed forces or their intelligence and security services. A real swing in the balance of power in favour of a Sino-Soviet alliance vis-à-vis the free world will have taken place giving the Russian and Chinese a preponderant share in setting up the new World Government system and leaving the West with little choice but to compete with them in designing the New World Social Order. If the Russian leaders continue to demonstrate to the Russian people that they can successfully extract Western aid and contribute to signs of economic progress, the Russian people will follow them and, like the Chinese, will end up laughing with their leaders at the folly of the West.
* Note by editor Christopher Story: Penetration en masse by the “ex-“Soviet Republics of the international institutions — the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, prospectively even the European Union — will survive the de facto extinguishing of the national Republics’ false political “independence”. The model for this is the UN membership of Byelorussia and Ukraine despite thier inclusion within the USSR. On 13 December 1994, “The Independent”, London, reminded its readers that “three months ago, Yevgeniy Primakov, the head of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, said in Moscow that, apart from the three Baltic Republics, the other 12 former Republics which belonged to the Soviet Union would largely reunite”.
This was the strategic situation around the time of the German reunification and the overall “collapse of communism”. The suspiciously peaceful and smooth “collapse” was in reality a globally coordinated operation, as not only did communism seemingly go out of business in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, also Red China appeared to become ever more “pragmatically capitalist”, while — Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam aside — all other former communist countries around the world, including such places as Mongolia, Albania or Ethiopia, were now allegedly “free democracies” run by instant-“social democrats”, if not, in some cases, by faux instant-“nationalists”. Voilà! Communism had miraculously “evolved”, all by itself, into democratic, capitalist “post-communism”, with basically the same personnel leading the way towards “brighter days”, to a new, glorious dawn that was going to be as red as communism had ever been. But neither Presidents Reagan and Bush the Elder nor Prime Minister Thatcher nor Chancellor Kohl had been sufficiently cautioned by their advisors and intelligence experts. There are several reasons for this flat-out strategic blunder, but in any case — sadly, tragically and suicidally — the West was caught completely off guard. All lines of defence had failed. No one could see the elephant in the room. Gorbachev and his propagandists had successfully mesmerised them all.
GERMANY’S OWN LONG-TERM STRATEGY — IN COMPETITION WITH THE SINO-SOVIET GRAND DESIGN
Seen in retrospect, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl’s rapid push for immediate German unity was nothing but a catastrophic miscalculation. Eager to make use of what he saw as a brief window of opportunity for achieving a reunification of the two German states and certainly determined to immortalise himself as the architect of such unity, Kohl neither questioned the readiness of East-Germans to virtually overnight adapt to free market conditions (having lived for fourty years under socialist central planning) nor did he really care about the willingness (or unwillingness) of his fellow West Germans to take on the colossal burden of financing the urgent modernisation of East Germany’s outdated and unprofitable industries as well as hopelessly run-down infrastructure.
Kohl, a studied historian (but by no means an intellectual giant nor even an outstanding orator) and often referred to as “Adenauer’s grandson” (he indeed had throughout his political career a picture of Konrad Adenauer on his work desk), had his eyes fixed on “greater things”, whatever the cost. The late British analyst Christopher Story (“The European Union Collective”) was even convinced that both Adenauer (sometimes apostrophised as the “Old Fox”) and later Kohl (who was anything but a staunch conservative) were pursuing a continuing pan-German project “by other means” in an attempt to retroactively win World War II, without swastika or Nazi rhetoric or so much as a Führer. As early as 1942 (i.e., before Stalingrad and thus at a time when the war didn’t necessarily look lost for Germany yet), there was issued a strategy paper authored by Germany’s leading economists and industrialists focussing on an alternative way of getting hold of all of Europe, should the war indeed get lost: namely, by gradually setting up an economic, even political federation of all European nations, all of course under the control of Germany, all the way to a single European currency and a tightly centralised policy in all economic fields. Sound familiar? And guess what: The title of that 1942 paper was Europäische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft (i.e., European Economic Community)!
And, sure enough, after the end of the war, the old Nazi networks, that had never been effectively rooted out by “denazification”, were happily working on their same old project of a unified (German-controlled) Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. Here is, in full, a September 1950 (!) German secret memorandum of 23 book pages (known as the “Madrid Circular”), that was sent from a Madrid-based German geopolitical think-tank to other German planning departments, but was intercepted by Western intelligence (source: T.H. Tetens. Germany Plots with the Kremlin. New York: Henry Schuman, 1953. pp. 209-232. – Free PDF: part 1/2; part 2/2). For those who prefer to skip this document, this author’s elaborations continue further below:
SG 23
Top Secret!
The War in Korea and World Political Possibilities for Germany and Europe
1. The World Situation Five Years After Potsdam
The war in Korea has brought the world political situation to a climax with such momentum that we must reckon seriously with the possibility of a third world war. The repercussions and the impact of the Korea conflict are unforeseeable at the moment and no predictions can be made as to the possible turn of events.
Certain political and military factors stand out: Russia has used the five years’ interval since the end of the war to strengthen her military preparedness in an extraordinary manner, whereas the United States and the western coalition have neglected their military establishment. Among the unknown imponderables are the following: secret weapons, new tactics, planning for sabotage, extent of future destruction, choice of theaters of war, and of neutral zones.
The critical world situation compels unemotional and painstaking pondering of all these factors which, in a favorable or unfavorable manner, might influence the future of Germany and Europe. The war in Korea can bring great opportunities to Germany if she follows a prudent foreign policy; in fact, Germany has already gained many advantages thanks to the present war situation. Nonetheless, there is the danger that through false steps or through the chain reaction of events, the whole of Europe will be swamped by a tidal wave of unimaginable destruction. Such an event must be prevented at all cost. Everything today depends on a far-sighted, subtle and quick-shifting policy which must constantly bear in mind not only the future of Germany, but the destiny of Europe as a whole. We must, by all means, prevent a development whereby Europe will be destroyed between the Russian and the American millstones.
2. The Role of Germany and Europe in the Present Crisis
Not merely Germany, but the whole of Europe has been bled white and is not now in a position to act as a decisive factor in world politics. The aim of German policy, and that of Europe as a whole, must be to remain neutral in any new world conflict no matter the circumstances. This is especially important for Germany for she still has a long way to go until she can regain her political freedom and her economic strength to the fullest extent. Germany has exploited the tension between the East and the West to the utmost and she must continue her efforts in that direction. She must endeavor to influence discreetly the shaping of the future. Not only is it decisive how Germany acts in her own interest, but she in turn is also greatly affected by the policies of the other European powers. England and France today are perhaps more dependent on the United States than the still occupied West German Republic.
Europe, on the one hand, is today in an unenviable strategic position, but, on the other hand, it enjoys the advantage of being the geopolitical center astride the Soviet colossus and the U.S.A. Present circumstances make it therefore necessary for Europe to be on guard against both sides in order to avoid being swallowed up by one of the two colossi. The dollar imperialism is certainly in no way less aggressive or reckless than communism. The British and French, although former “allies” and “victors” feel the impact of that arrogant dollar diplomacy to a greater extent than we Germans whose sympathy they (USA) hope to gain.
Today Western Europe is relegated to the role of a satellite acting on behalf of America. Schuman in France, and Bevin in England, dance to the tune of the piper in Washington. Europe is being used as the playground for the impudent and shameless dollar diplomacy. Thanks to their solid political education, middle class and labor in Germany have been able to grasp the whole situation in time. Occasionally there arises in France and England resentment against the United States also, but, unfortunately, it is too often linked with attacks against Germany.
During the forthcoming months, Germany’s foreign policy must be geared to a subtler exploitation of the conflict between the eastern and western blocs. Our aim in the immediate future must be to regain full sovereignty for Western Germany which will eventually result in the restoration of freedom of action to the whole of Europe. With accelerated speed we are approaching the point at which we must liberate Europe from American control. It is Germany’s task to take the lead in this campaign. It is up to us to determine the method and the timing.
There is the danger that France or England — perhaps even both jointly — will return to an independent policy. One or the other of these powers might come to an agreement with Russia and, in either case, this would be at the expense of Germany and the United States. Such a possibility must be avoided at all cost. Germany must remain the decisive factor in European politics and it is up to her to give the word at the right time.
German foreign policy must be directed with a view to steering Europe clear from another world conflict. Conditions for such policy are favorable. The European nations long for peace. The self-interests of France and England categorically demand that a new holocaust must be avoided. The interests of the Vatican run along the same lines. Our paramount attention must be devoted to the preservation of German strength and its native potential (“Erhaltung der deutschen Substanz”). World political events could take such a turn that a situation may emerge in which Russia, North America and a great part of Asia may become the battleground for a third world war, whereas Europe might be spared. Were Russia to give a guarantee to the European countries that she would abstain from attacking them, then the whole of Europe could take a neutral stand in the event of a conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. The prevalent mood in every country of Europe is against war, and in England broad masses of the people are convinced that the next war will be one provoked by America. If, therefore, we were to succeed in obtaining from Russia a guarantee that she would respect the neutrality of Europe, then the United States could be confronted with a similar demand, and the war could thus be confined to the territories of both great victorious powers and their vassals. In this manner, German strength (deutsche Substanz) and the resources of Europe would be safeguarded against annihilation. Such an outlook may seem fantastic at the moment, but the policy recommended (“realpolitische Zielsetzung”) is the only realistic one which should be followed by Europe today. A war of exhaustion between Russia and America, in which Europe could be spared, would automatically result in the upsurge of a third power bloc. If the continent of Europe succeeds in preserving its strength, it would thus regain the leadership in the world. There are reliable reports that such a policy would have the quiet but vigorous support of the Vatican. It is entirely to the interest of the Roman Catholic Church to see to it that the Orthodox Slavs (“schismatisches Slaventum”) and the predominant Protestant North American continent, must be weakened for a long time to come.
In view of the present world political situation (“realpolitische Lage”), the policy of orientation towards the West has lost all meaning or sense. A conscious policy of neutrality, going hand in hand with close economic cooperation with the East, would, from a long range point of view, supersede a merely pro-Soviet orientation. The former would finally bring about our freedom, while the last would keep us in the status of vassals.
We must not forget that Germany has always considered orientation towards the West as a policy of expediency or one to be pursued only under pressure of circumstances. Such was the case in Napoleon’s time, after 1918, and also after 1945. All of our great national leaders have constantly counseled the long-range policy of close cooperation with the East; thus, Frederick the Great, Count von Stein, Bismarck, von Seeckt, Brockdorff-Rentzau, and, in the past 30 years, all our leading geopoliticians. By the end of 1940, Hitler’s policy had run into a blind alley (“Zwangslage”), and the hard decision had to be made to ensure by means of the sword access to the gigantic sources of raw materials in the East, which Russia would never have delivered voluntarily, and without which we never could expect to force a showdown against the Anglo-American bloc.
Our present policy must be to overcome the consequences of our previous mistakes. An emasculated Germany should never allow itself to be used as a spearhead in an attack against the Russian colossus. This would be an insane act (“Wahnsinnsexperiment”) and would spell our final doom, whereas Germany as the exponent of European neutrality could gain far-reaching concessions from the Soviets. As we have pointed out again and again, the Russians have no desire whatsoever to burden themselves with all the difficulties and complex problems of Europe; they would consider a neutral and well-intentioned Europe, exerting its influence also on the Arab world and Latin America, as the best solution.
We must not let ourselves become befogged by Washington’s stupid and meaningless slogans about the “Struggle of Democracy versus Communism.” The so-called American democracy does not deserve the sacrifice of the bones of even a single German soldier.In the age of regimented and militarized economy, the babbling about democracy and so-called “free enterprise” is such nonsense that we need not squander a single moment in refuting this American propaganda swindle.
What Germany needs in the future is not democracy but a system of statecraft similar to that of the Soviet dictatorship which would enable the political and military elite in Germany to organize the industrial capacity of Europe and the military qualities of the German people for the revival of the German race and the re-establishment of Europe as the power center in the world.
3. Korea -—A Risky Gamble for Washington
American intervention in Korea is dangerous playing with fire. It could easily become the beginning of a third world war. Up to now Moscow has shown great restraint but it is difficult to guess what is shaping up behind the facade of the accelerated “peace offensive.” The Americans have staked their whole prestige on the gamble in Korea. Even if the Americans should succeed in maintaining a foothold on the southern tip of the peninsula* (* According to this, the memorandum was evidently prepared before the Inchon landing by MacArthur in mid-September, 1950.) for an undetermined period of time, they would find it difficult to pull out of the Korean adventure without damage to their prestige. After committing herself to intervention, the United States would not be able to pull out; she would have to show the world her determination to bring about her world order. From the military-strategic point of view, the Korean undertaking entails the greatest risk. Were war with Russia to break out tomorrow, then the Yankees (“Amis”) would find themselves caught in the Korean mousetrap. However, from the political point of view, the Korean intervention — camouflaged as a U. N. undertaking — is a very bold move: it isolated Russia and at one stroke created a world coalition of the United Nations against Communism. If the Korean conflict were to expand tomorrow into a world war, then fifty nations would automatically be lined up on the side of the United States against the Soviet bloc. An extraordinarily clever feat!
There is, however, one doubtful element in American planning: do the interests of all countries, great and small, the European as well as the Asian, conform with those of the United States? There are indications that the British have supported United States policy in Korea only halfheartedly. If the Americans are thrown out of Korea, then British prestige in the whole of Asia would suffer; but even if the Yankees should prove victorious, then the hatred of all Asia would be roused with the same intensity against the British as against the Americans. The British view with great distaste the clumsy hand of Washington meddling in their Asiatic affairs. London remembers with great bitterness the noisy pro-Indian propaganda carried on in the United States during the war. London realizes that not Russia but the United States must be blamed as the gravedigger of the British Empire. The United States entered the world war supposedly to save England, but worked with great zeal to junk the British Empire.
The motives for the American adventure in Korea are still shrouded in mystery, but this much is known: Washington waited long for a good opportunity to put its economy on a war footing and to accelerate her mobilization with full speed. The effects of this step on world economy and its political consequences become clearer and clearer day by day: in the course of total mobilization for war, not much will be left of “democracy.”
4. The Political and Military Strength of the United States
Reliable observers in the United States have pictured the present state of affairs in that country as follows:
The United States economy is not ready for war. Stockpiling of essential raw materials has only been pursued to a moderate extent. From the military point of view, the United States is not in best trim. Its armed forces are limited and extremely expensive; units ready for combat are barely available; the machinery of the various military services is luxurious and marked by squander and misadministration. The United States is by no means ready for war and has not even entered the phase of secret mobilization. Washington politics show all signs of confusion. There is no real planning, nothing has been thoroughly studied nor has anything been organized from a longrange point of view. According to reports received from the States, the Yankees (“Amis”) have a lot to learn. Even in leading military circles there are abysmal illusions in regard to Russia’s economic and military strength.
The United States can consider itself very lucky if the war remains confined to Korea. Should Russia desire war, then this would be a most opportune moment for it. Some incident or other could easily be brought about; but for Europe it would be a catastrophe. Today the Yankees (“Amis”) have political headaches in every nook and cranny of the world. They are not only trapped in Korea, but they are also worried by the uncertain and hectic developments in China, Japan, Iran, Germany, Yugoslavia, Turkey and Africa. There are deep-rooted differences with Great Britain and France and, above all, the Russian bear is poised to spring at any moment.
The cowboys in the arena of world politics have gorged themselves in all respects. Although they can throw billions of dollars around, they do not possess top-notch statesmen, planners, military leaders, scientists, nor a people willing to make sacrifices and capable of accomplishing great historic feats. They do not even have an attractive ideal. The crux of American miscalculation is the belief that allies can be bought with dollars. Alliances are not cemented with ideologies but rest squarely on common interests. Alliances too are respected as long as interests remain mutual. But America’s interests do not run parallel with those of Asia or Europe, not even with those of Britain or Latin America. The slogan which stirs the world today is the word “anticapitalism.”
The American people, who were untouched by the destructive course of two world wars, are constantly plagued by a guilty conscience. They are bothered by a gnawing doubt as to whether they always make the right decisions. Too often have they miscalculated and, when something goes wrong, they easily fall victim to a hangover. Great decisions can only be made by a well-prepared people with strong nerves. This is the real reason why Americans have an inferiority complex when dealing with us Germans. The Amis in Germany realize that we Germans possess worthier qualities. No wonder then that high-ranking American officers in Germany and in Washington long for German rearmament. They would certainly feel much better if Germany would, within a short time, put 50 to 80 divisions at their disposal.
The higher the difficulties pile up for the Americans, the more favorable become our prospects for successfully overcoming our defeat. The Yankees are willing to pay a high price for our help. This is clear from all confidential reports which we have obtained from circles close to the American High Commissioner.
5. Has Germany an Obligation towards the United States?
Germany has emerged from the cold war as the chief beneficiary. That is our great asset in the ledger of the 5-year period since Potsdam. For the first time in the history of nations it has been proven that clever propaganda, especially when it is camouflaged and directed through other channels,* (* Cf. our confidential report of May 1948: “The Vatican as a political factor in the cold war.” ) accomplishes far more than the mightiest army or the best diplomatic service of a smoothly-functioning state. It is a great mistake to assume that Western Germany recuperated so quickly thanks to America’s sympathetic concern for us. We repeatedly encounter, especially as expressed by some politicians in Bonn, the idiotic opinion: “But the Americans have put us back on our feet, should we therefore not show our gratitude?” To this our answer is as follows: The Americans put us back on our feet, not purely for altruistic reasons but for their selfish interests and on the basis of clever calculation. It must not be our worry but theirs if in the last resort their calculations prove to be abysmally stupid. We are not wholly innocent in the shift of America’s postwar policy. For us the war has never stopped and, as is well known, in war every ruse is permissible. We cannot repeat too often that Germany never has ceased to carry on the war with political weapons and propaganda, with economic sabotage and other means. In order to protect Germany against total destruction of its military and economic potentials, as planned at Yalta, we blueprinted a bold plan and created a flexible and smoothly-working organization which, at the end of the war, provided the pre condition for all the gains that by necessity emerged for Germany out of the chaos of the postwar period. All our calculations at that time were not fulfilled without a hitch. Some of our expectations proved faulty. We had to sail around dangerous cliffs and the German people had to suffer for a while even under conditions deliberately created by ourselves. It even seemed at times as though every effort was in vain and that all our hopes had to be given up. Today, however, five years after Potsdam, we can look back with pride on our accomplishments.
Future historians will one day reveal the great vision with which responsible leaders of the Third Reich created with confident determination those measures which subsequently smashed the united front of the enemy and made Germany again a much-desired partner in a new politico-strategic alliance. And all this was accomplished at the time when German leaders had to go through the severe crisis of the oncoming defeat. By no means did the political and military leadership of the Third Reich skid into the catastrophe in an irrational manner as so many blockheads and ignoramuses often tell us. The various phases and consequences of the so-called “collapse” (“Zusammenbruch”) were thoroughly studied and planned by the most capable experts (“faehigsten Koepfen”). Nothing occurred by chance; everything was carefully planned. The result of this planning was that, already a few months after Potsdam, the condition of the victors went on the rocks.
The decision for a Western or Eastern orientation was influenced by the factors of Realpolitik. In the light of conditions prevailing in 1945, we could expect from only the West — or rather from the United States — moderate conditions for an armistice, measures of relief, and a sympathetic understanding. Only in America did there exist at that time a small but influential group who had not fallen victim to the hate and revenge outcry of the Jewish triumvirate Rosenfeld *-Morgenthau-Baruch (* The name “Rosenfeld” refers to the late President Roosevelt. It was frequently used by the Nazis, who tried to show in their propaganda that the President was a descendant of a Dutch Jewish family. ), but had maintained in a well-concealed but consistent manner throughout the war its sympathy for Germany.
The machinery which we had prepared so carefully in advance had consciously brought about conditions and situations which after the collapse confronted America’s political leaders with the choice of accepting chaos and Bolshevism throughout Germany, or adopting a constructive program that would save Germany and the whole of Europe. Such a plan and such a bold program could only be successfully carried out by a politically well-trained people as the Germans. The twelve years of intense political schooling now proved to have been of paramount importance. When we take into consideration under what tremendous difficulties and dangers the organization had to work in an underground manner and directed from abroad without any protection or backing by any state, carefully watched and persecuted by agents of a revengeful enemy, then the successful outcome seems like a miracle. In order to bring the Americans back to reason and away from Potsdam, we organized chaotic conditions in a thorough and systematic manner (“haben wir mit gruendlicher Systematik das Chaos organisiert”). It was a subtle political resistance, seemingly unorganized and seldom visible, but nonetheless having a deadly effect. The peasants were delivering almost next to nothing to the cities; no coal was brought up from the pits, the wheels of industry were not turning, the people came near to starvation; the monetary systems were disintegrating — there remained nothing for the Yankees to do but to give in and scrap the Potsdam program. Soon thereafter the Western Zone received food supplies, local self-government, extensive economic help, credits for currency reform and, finally, broad political self-determination. Today we are on the last stage towards complete sovereignty.
Through superb planning and disciplined use of the political weapon of quiet resistance, the German people have brought to naught the plans for revenge of the victors. By forcing the Americans to give in, the first broad cracks were caused in the Yalta and Potsdam agreements. As a consequence, not only did the front of our enemies break wide apart, but the Soviets too were forced to abandon their mad program of destruction in Eastern Germany. Thus it was proven that the excellent political skill and remote control of a welltrained people can score such great successes even after total military defeat as have never before been recorded in history. This could only have been achieved by the leaders of the Third Reich through superb planning in the realm of psychological and political warfare within the United States before and even during the war.
Just as Clausewitz declared that war is merely an extension of action by other means, so the German people continued the war after the “collapse” by propaganda and other means. Despite sacrifice and hardship, the German people won this political war along the whole front. It is our great asset in the ledger of geopolitical schooling and planning that five years after Potsdam, the aims of our enemies have been abandoned, Germany’s strength has been preserved, and the Fatherland can look forward to a revival rich in possibilities.
The revival of Germany was not a gift of the Americans but exclusively the result of our own farsighted planning. The first overwhelming success of this planning was achieved through our wellorganized anti-Morgenthau campaign. We thereby succeeded in undermining Roosevelt’s plans of revenge against Germany and created total confusion in Washington. By keeping Germany industrially strong and by gaining the support of influential senators and representatives in the American Congress for our propaganda against the dismantling of large industrial enterprises, we finally succeeded in preserving Germany as the leading industrial power in the heart of Europe. Thus the plans of Potsdam and Yalta came to naught and the period of the cold war began which developed into a struggle between the East and the West on the decisive question as to who should exploit German industry and within whose orbit Germany’s industrial potential should be incorporated. In this way, Germany gained valuable time for further maneuvering. Thus, without a doubt, the correctness of our earliest planning was proved, which anticipated that orientation towards the West would open up great possibilities for the speedy overcoming of our military defeat. In 1945, orientation towards the East would have been totally wrong. It could only have stirred up the West against us and, in view of the deep-rooted hatred of the Russians at that time against everything German, it would have brought common action of our enemies against us and would have spelled “finis” to all our aspirations. Thanks, however, to our correct decisions, the situation has changed entirely today. We are now once again in the position to influence the turn of events — today we are again making history.
Five years after Potsdam, the Yankees are stuck deep in the mud; they are now seeking the advice of our generals whom they formerly called criminals; they come pleading for our help against Russia. That of which we could never convince the world, namely: the injustice of the policy of revenge, was finally accomplished by the Americans themselves who, speculating on German help, have propounded the necessity for a revision of policy toward Germany. They have even convinced the French and the English of this.
The helplessness of the Americans in the midst of this chaotic situation has caused such confusion that, barely five years after Potsdam, we have obtained as much as — according to the most optimistic calculations — we had hoped to attain in only ten to fifteen years.
6. The Expellees (“Die Heimatvertriebenen”).
The millions of expellees have to be regarded as a valuable trumpcard in our policy towards the restoration of German power. When our enemies were drunk with victory, they did not recognize the danger of their short-sighted policy of revenge which might one day arise from the banishment of millions of people. The expulsion of 10 million German racial comrades (“Volksdeutschen”) was a blessing for the Reich. The expellees strengthened the biological substance of our race (“verstaerkten die deutsche Volkssubstanz”) and from the beginning they became a valuable asset to our propaganda. The expellees, discontented with their fate, infused a strong political dynamism in our demands. Very soon we were able to drown out the noisy propaganda about German “crimes” with our counter accusation about the heinous misdeeds (“zum Himmelschreiende Unrecht”) committed against 10 million German racial comrades. Today the existence of many millions of expellees constantly troubles the guilty conscience of our enemies. Without the pressing problem of the expellees it would certainly not have been so easy to set American relief work in motion on behalf of Germany. The refugees from the East constitute a valuable factor in our coming negotiations with Russia, especially if we will one day demand the return of the stolen territories in the East, or if we should insist on adequate compensation in the West.
Those Eastern refugees who settle overseas usually turn out to be good missionaries for our Germandom abroad. They constitute, even in countries far away, an asset for the German race, especially if they stay together in close settlements.
The distress of the refugees has created a common political ground among all Germans, regardless of political affiliation. The demand for the restitution of the stolen German territories keeps our political agitation alive. The militant elements among the refugees are working according to the best traditions of National Socialism, whereas the broad masses among the expellees are kept close together in welldisciplined homeland organizations (“landsmannschaftlichen Organisationen”).
If the enemy would have kept our racial comrades after the war as second-class citizens, or even as defranchised subjects in Poland, in Czechoslovakia and in other regions, it would be far more difficult for us today to bring the territorial issue of the east on the agenda again. The expulsion of millions of our racial comrades provides us with a heaven-sent opportunity to exacerbate the problem of the bleeding border (“blutende Grenze”) and to hammer constantly for its revision.
7. Weltanschauung and World Power Politics
The great historical accomplishment which overshadows every other deed of Adolf Hitler was his decision, carried out with iron energy, to condition the German people into fighting for their great world political task. The necessity to educate a whole nation for total war had been recognized long before Hitler, but Hitler was the first one who tackled the tremendously difficult problem of getting a firm hold on the people and of organizing them into a unified movement on the basis of National Socialism.
The training which the German nation received during the twelve years of National Socialist leadership has created a firm basis on which German world politics will be able to carry on again in the future. The National Socialist Weltanschauung furnishes the intellectual potential (“geistiges Potential”) in the struggle for world supremacy.
The future of the world will be decided by the conquering force of a political ideology. “Democracy” is a wishy-washy term which has found no ear among the German people, notwithstanding the efforts made by the Americans for re-education. No German is willing to fight and die for democracy. The German people, well-trainedand steeled under national socialist leadership, are dominated by two sovereign ideas: the concept of a German Reich, and Germany’s mission of leadership in the world (“deutsche Fuehrermission in der Welt”). These two ideas have given our people a powerful driving force for the dynamic execution of their world mission. The mystical element and the religious tradition embodied in the concept of the Reich, sparks our political mission and is especially attractive within the Catholic world.* (* Obviously, this refers to the thousand-year history of the “Holy Roman Empire.” There were times when the secular power of the Empire and the spiritual power of the Church interpenetrated each other.)
Even after the collapse, the National Socialist Party continued to work in a camouflaged way (“getarnt”) in dozens of seemingly innocuous societies and groups, in order to keep alive and undiluted the national outlook of the German people. In the same way as many small brooks go toward making a mighty stream, the various nationalistic and radical groups in the Zonen-Reich carried out, almost without exception, worth-while and powerful propaganda. Each of these groups had its special task and had to adjust its work in line with certain situations and circumstances. However, it was of chief importance to direct the underlying trend of the patriotic propaganda towards the same goal. The more diverse and unconnected these groups appeared on the surface, the less they were apt to arouse suspicion (of the Occupying authorities) that they were directed and influenced by a central organization.
We have placed our confidential agents, observers, and representatives for special assignments in all groups and parties-even among Communist organizations and their fronts. The greater the number of organizations controlled and influenced by us, the more effective will be the results of our work.
The discontinuation of the Nationalist-Socialist press after the collapse deprived us of the most important weapon for national indoctrination. Secret circular letters and leaflets reach only a limited number of party comrades who, in most cases, already knew the directives to be followed and propagated in given situations. The victors had tried to suppress every expression of national feeling. They filled the editorial offices of the licensed newspapers with Jews and traitors. Nonetheless, there were some periodicals which-first abroad and then in the Zonen-Reich-did their best to fight courageously and frankly, sometimes in a cleverly camouflaged manner, for the national interests of Germany.
Praiseworthy work was accomplished by the German press in South and North America. In the past few years some papers in the English and American Zones achieved excellent results in line with our great national aim. The political articles in Die Zeit of Hamburg, and the intelligent advice given by the paper on delicate domestic problems deeply influenced the political thinking of the German people.
In Argentina, Der Weg and the Freie Presse have striven in an extraordinary manner to create a distinct political approach among Germans abroad, as well as in the Zonen-Reich.
The German press in North America, especially the New York Staats Zeitung, proved of great value in battling the hate-psychosis and in its efforts to re-establish close German-American relations. There are also numerous small papers in the United States which, in the midst of the most intense German hate-wave, interceded bravely and fought with unbelievable courage for the resurrection of a united fatherland.
It was most difficult for the German press to deal delicately with the events of July 20, 1944. The less these events are discussed, the better it will be for Germany’s future. A split among the German people on this question would prove disastrous. There are many angles which obviously cannot as yet be discussed openly. There were thousands who had reason, or were even ordered to protect themselves by camouflaging as “anti-Nazis” (“Hitlergegner”). Persons who were at that time reported as having been shot are still among the living today. Let us also bear in mind that Dr. Ley’s statement about the “blue-blooded swine” * (* This term “blue-blooded swine” was used by Dr. Ley in an inciting speech and refers to those aristocratic circles which were supposedly involved in the plot against Hitler’s life on July 20, 1944.) served the definite purpose of deceiving the enemy. Our leaders must see to it that the ever-recurring discussions about the events of the 20th of July be either stopped or, if possible, passed over lightly. Previous directives remained valid; no information whatsoever should be revealed about the background of that affair.
The convulsive effects of the military defeat have not broken the German spirit. The national tradition is carefully fostered among the youth and the veterans. The biological substance of the German people remained unshaken in its foundation. Our people are ready to be called upon for historic decisions. A nation which has lost two world wars in the short span of 30 years but is already again conscious of its future tasks, can never be defeated. National training and political schooling have conditioned the German people as a first-class instrument for the execution of world politics on a grand style. No other people on earth has such political maturity, fanatical faith, ironclad willpower and flexibility in tactics — not merely to overcome defeat but also to start again from scratch. German tradition and belief in a world mission uplifts the whole German nation. Everyone feels within his deepest consciousness that the great national task — the struggle for world domination — will ultimately be crowned with victory.
The Wehrhoheit † († “Wehrhoheit” is the German term describing a country’s exclusive prerogativeto determine the size and disposition of its armed forces.) is the chief characteristic of the independence of a state and the freedom of its actions. A nation which has lost its Wehrhoheit is no longer free. After the first world war the victor permitted the Reich a limited Wehrmacht, but our whole national struggle up to 1935 centered around the question of the re-establishment of a German Wehrhoheit. Only then, when we shall again be able to determine in unhampered freedom whether and to what extent we shall rearm ourselves, and when and against whom we may use our armed forces, will we have regained our Wehrhoheit.
We, in all probability, will have attained Wehrhoheit as a result of German rearmament, which will not only be permitted but even urgently desired by the Western powers. The problem of the reestablishment of a German Wehrmacht is a delicate one and requires great cleverness and astute statesmanlike minds in order to make the correct decisions at the right time.
Germany must concentrate all its efforts on regaining her Wehrhoheit. Washington’s obstinate efforts to rearm the West German Federal Republic and to make it a strong military partner, within or outside the Atlantic Pact, come as no surprise. In previous circular letters we have frequently mentioned the plans of influential American circles who, even in the midst of war, opposed Roosevelt’s policy of revenge and who strongly advocated the preservation of a mighty Germany as a bulwark against the East. The turn of historic events has, however, shown that all the hopes which German leadership placed in the friendly intentions of these personalities in the United States were grossly exaggerated. The systematically whipped up hatred toward Germany incited the American people so thoroughly that those personalities — high ranking military, church leaders, politicians, and captains of finance — who were working for a policy of reconciliation, could express their views only with the utmost circumspection and execute it through time-consuming detours.
The American policy of reconciliation with Germany was very advantageous because it gave us a breathing spell at the very beginning; it was precisely this policy which smashed the allied front. Moscow’s goal was the annihilation of the German power-potential — military, political and economic — for good. Yalta proclaimed the aim of a brutal peace Diktat which left the vanquished no hope of revival. To our great misfortune three influential men in commanding positions in the West advocated the same idea of annihilation: Roosevelt, Morgenthau and Baruch. These men were joined by the German-hater Churchill. Only Roosevelt’s death opened the way to those forces who advocated a positive or, at least, a more moderate program towards Germany, and whose blueprints for a postwar world were entirely opposed to those of Roosevelt. These circles recognized in the Russian victory a strengthening of Communism, and they feared its complications and the shattering effects it entailed for the capitalistic system. These considerations resulted in a plan — first formulated secretly in Washington and later openly discussed, aiming at the creation of a united Europe as a bulwark against Russia with the proviso that a strengthened and rearmed Germany be incorporated in such a combination. What the Americans therefore now expect from us are combat units and the manufacture of war material. That is why Washington, right from the beginning, was not in favor of dismantling the German war potential.
What consequences can be expected for Germany from Washington’s present policy? At first we gained great advantages from America’s policy. The Morgenthau plan was never really executed; instead, the Americans endeavored to make Western Germany a strong economic, and now even a military bulwark against the East. The help we obtained from America after the war — and this for egotistic and not for altruistic reasons — will bring us to a point where its further acceptance might create great danger for Germany. We are now approaching this point with giant strides. The Americans fondly hope that we will one day repay with our blood all the benefits we received from them. They want us to sign a pact whereby we, as mercenaries and vassals, will back American power politics. The West German Republic cannot and must never give its consent to such a tieup, which is already proscribed by our exposed geographic position (“exponierte geopolitische Lage”). The American plan would make Germany the spearhead of an attack at the heart of Russia. Germany would thereby become the battlefield in a war of annihilation from which nothing would be spared of the German biological substance. A German statesman who would lend his help to such a criminal act would thus stamp himself automatically as a traitor of the German people. However long we may continue to milk the Americans of millions of dollars, there must come the inevitable moment when we shall have to make it crystal-clear to them that we are not willing to join the fight against Russia for American interests. There probably is no danger that we shall become hated by the Yankees for this because they are businessmen and understand very well that we will act only in accordance with our own interests.
How should Germany proceed diplomatically in the present situation? It is openly stated in Washington that Europe cannot be defended without German help. The Americans are becoming insistent and we must give them some hope, but we must at the same time point to the fact that the German people are hesitant and not inclined to defend Europe so long as Germany is treated as a defeated nation. By constantly squeezing concessions out of the victors, we can best prepare the way towards the re-establishment of our Wehrhoheit. During the coming weeks and months we must extract the utmost in concessions. We will therefore not be able to avoid making promises. It is of the greatest importance for the resumption of Germany’s respected standing in the world to fight for the re-establishment of German honor. We have to undo the shame of the judgments motivated by revenge (Nuremberg War Crimes Trial, etc.), which the victors executed on the military and civic leaders of the Third Reich. The offerings which the Americans could make in this respect would cost them nothing. To save a few dozen brave men from the gallows and to free a few hundred from the prisons, should not prove too difficult to accomplish if the Bonn Government would take a resolute stand. To obtain such a token of friendship from the Yankees, we could even give them some promises. But there is a difference between mere promises and such commitments as would bind us irrevocably. We must ultimately remain free in our decisions towards all sides, even if we are obliged for reasons of expediency to agree formally to such obligations. We should reap all advantages but never commit ourselves. The Yankees need us today more urgently than ever before. Clever political tactics today could bring about the conditions for the definite acknowledgment of our Wehrhoheit but it must not lead so far that, in case of a showdown, we would have to pull Washington’s chestnuts out of the fire. We must pursue Realpolitik, i.e., our honor must be restored and we must regain freedom.
Prospects for the Future
The international unrest and the tension between the East and the West have greatly facilitated execution of our plans up till now. The surprising and rapid revival of the German economy and the debate on the Schuman Plan have, however, prematurely focused the attention of the world on a resurrected Germany. The war in Korea served as a desired diversion. The fact that the Americans would now like us to join them in the defense of Europe and become their ally will thereby enhance our bargaining power with the Russians. The Americans have lost the peace, the cold war, and their entire future, but they are not as yet aware of it. After the failure of their amateurish policies in Asia, the Americans will one day experience a far more painful and devastating smashup in Europe (“einen noch weit peinlicheren Kladderadatsch in Europa”). The outcome will be as we predicted as long ago as 1944: they will rouse the whole world against them. Those dollar-diplomats and cowboys are too untalented to cope with the problem of world politics (Weltpolitik). Their silly chatter that American troops are in Germany for the purpose of protecting occidental Kultur is so idiotic that it could not make the slightest impression even on the most humble stableboy in Germany. We should grab a few more billions from the Yankees’ huge dollar-chest and then kick them out (eines Tages an die frische Luft setzen), or simply hand them over to the Russians. A few little hints and threats would perhaps make them scram in time (zum rechtzeitigen Abzug bewegen).
The first phase of our policy of disruption (Sprengungspolitik) is behind us. America’s financial assistance can never bring about a permanent solution; on the contrary, it will cause enfeeblement and lead to general corruption. These unpleasant by-products are becoming visible in France and Britain to an ever-increasing greater degree than in truncated Germany. The dollar-diplomats behave as though they were the true lords in the salons of Europe. Germany lost her sovereignty as a consequence of the military defeat. Paris and London, however, sold their birthright for a mess of pottage (“verkauften ihr Hausrecht gegen Dollaranleihen”).
The struggle against American bossing (Bevormundung) of Europe will become Germany’s main task in the future. We must not merely strive to shake off the shackles with which Washington has bound us, and labor to regain our freedom of action in the East, but we must also prepare the whole of Europe for our future mission in the world. A well-filled breadbasket, sufficient sources of raw material and the necessary geopolitical space for strategic maneuvering (“Ausweichmoeglichkeiten im geopolitischen Raum”) will one day prove more than ever before to be the most important factors in deciding Europe’s struggle for world mastery.
The strategy of breaking the chains of our enthrallment (Fesselnsprengen) is sometimes more daring and dangerous than the most dashing feat in war. We could, for instance, visualize that through secret negotiations with Moscow a situation would be brought about whereby the Yankees could overnight be eliminated as a power factor in Europe. Such a scheme of course always contains an element of grave danger. Not that such a plan would be impossible of execution, but there is always the question how far the Russians are to be trusted.
Other schemes would be preferable from a long-range point of view. We are passing through an interim period of a profound change in international power relations. Everywhere there emerges the desire for a new order and an outspoken aversion against dollar diplomacy. In this extended transitory period, it should prove possible for Germany to build up a new political bloc (“neue politische Einheit”) out of Europe, Africa and Latin America (“Iberoamerika”). The economic advantages and the political possibilities in such a new power combination would put the United States against the wall. It would then depend entirely on our diplomatic and propaganda finesses when and how we would take over an America enfeebled by its foreign and domestic policies. Such a plan would have the advantage of preventing a third world war fought between United States capitalism and the Soviet bloc — a war which would have the most destructive consequences for the Western world. Such a design would still guarantee for some time the preservation of the resources of the Western world and then, greatly strengthened, we will enter — under Germanic leadership — the phase of a final showdown, between the white race and the slavic world. In the event of such a showdown, we must endeavor to bring to our side the Arab bloc and as many of the Asiatic peoples as possible. Germany is in the fortunate position of not having aroused the hatred of Asia. There we can step in as the leading spokesman for the underdog.
The tenacious work of enlightenment carried out by Germany and Italy in the Arab world is now bearing fruit. Anti-British and anti-American resentment is gaining momentum in the entire Middle East. Britain will not long be able to keep its hold on the Suez Canal, nor maintain her influence in Iran and the rest of the Middle East. The coming revolt of the Arab world will prove another setback for the amateurish world planners in Washington.
A correct evaluation of the Russian problem is important for Germany’s future. World War II clearly proved that Germany was not in a position to mobilize the necessary manpower and the tremendous economic reserves to deal the knockout blow which would have destroyed the Slav world forever. Our surprising successes in the Polish and Western campaigns lured our political and military leaders into the belief that they could quickly overrun the Russian armies. And it was demonstrated anew how foolish it was to disregard the wise admonition of Bismarck who, throughout his life, warned us against making Russia our enemy. It will require the greatest diplomatic efforts to lull Moscow’s profound distrust of us. The cold war has fortunately relegated the memory of Germany’s march into Russia to the background far more quickly than we could ever have hoped. But we must not deceive ourselves: Moscow will not forget the Second World War so quickly.
The present power position of the Slavic world is a geopolitical reality which we must accept, at least for the time being. Germany’s future policy should be the quiet penetration of Europe and must aim at consolidating our spheres of interest in Africa and Latin America.* (* The German memorandum employs the phrase “unsere Interessensphäre in Afrika und Lateinamerika,” whereas in fact the Germans have not as yet any spheres of interest in these continents. Nonetheless, in their geopolitical speculations they have already made an “Anschluss” with Europe and other continents.) We should avoid as far as possible dangerous propaganda ventures with the expellees which might antagonize the East. Russia may one day be willing to yield or negotiate, but we must never let it come to a struggle for prestige.
Germany’s industry will regain its previous position: the markets in East and Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Africa. China and the rest of Southeast Asia offer us a great future. There we can eliminate the British and Americans from competition, especially if we conduct our negotiations with the Soviets in a smart way. Our increasing economic power and ability to elbow our way politically, must be employed alternately. A prudent and undeviating policy will make it possible to establish some day a new political order in the world which will supersede the present colossi — the United States and the U.S.S.R.
Though we are powerless at present, we have nonetheless never permitted ourselves to be disarmed spiritually and scientifically. German scholars are working unremittingly in Germany as well as abroad on great scientific plans for the future. Favorable circumstances enabled us to keep alive the great research organization of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute through a change of name. First-class scientists are working in the fields of interplanetary navigation (“Raumschiffahrt”), chemistry and on cosmic rays. Our scientists, unhampered in their work, have sufficient time and are planning day and night for Germany’s future. It is the German spirit (“Geist”) that creates modern weapons and that will bring surprising changes in the present relationship of forces.
Economic difficulties will one day plunge the United States down from its present dizzy heights. Such a catastrophe can be brought about through crafty manipulations and through artificially engendered crises. Such maneuvers are routine measures which have already been employed in international power struggle and will be used again and again as long as economic rivals fight for power positions and markets in the world.
It is quite conceivable that America, weakened by a depression, will one day seek support from a resurrected Germany. Such a prospect would open tremendous possibilities for the future power position of a bloc introducing a new order in the world.
This must be our program: be constantly on the alert, evaluate future developments correctly, and miss no opportunities. It is the duty of a vanquished nation to learn from its defeat, to work with unremitting courage and with ever-increasing determination and endurance, and be prepared for a great world political task.
All these possibilities would come to naught if a new world war were to lay Europe waste. It must therefore be our supreme duty to place ourselves in the vanguard of the struggle to keep Europe out of any future war. If we succeed in this, we will surely gain the trust of the people and undisputed leadership in Europe, not excluding Britain. In such a roundabout way we would be able to establish the foundation for future world leadership. The world is longing today for the millennium. In the role of champion for peace, we would gain stature in world public opinion and create for ourselves an unshakable moral position. The propaganda against German “militarism” would subside entirely, old charges would be forgotten and Europe would then be willing to follow German leadership. Such a policy can be pursued successfully, especially in view of the present attitude of the Vatican. The Pope is a realist in politics (“ist Realpolitiker genug”) and knows well enough that, in the age of the Atom bomb, there is too much at stake for the Church and for Europe as a whole.
The Atlantic partners will always be able to find an opportunity to evade their obligations by pointing out that the provocative behavior of the United States has foolishly brought about a conflict for which the Russians cannot be charged as the aggressor and, therefore, all contractual obligations to help become void.
We must do everything possible in accordance with the directives and suggestions given above in order to influence in our favor the political attitude of all groups affiliated with us in Europe, Latin America and the United States. It should also be possible to make it clear to the German element in America what Germany’s fate would be were a new world war to annihilate the substance of our race or if a victorious Russia were to upset or delay for a long time our plans for the future.
Completed: MADRID, Beginning of September 1950.
Distribution (Verteiler):
Dr. M
v. T., Bonn
Rom
Barcelona
Buenos Aires
Z.A.
In other words, if Germany isn’t red, it’s solidly and unchangedly deep-brown. Either way, it’s socialist — and Teutonically megalomaniac. So what we have, according to T.H. Tetens’ (and certainly Christopher Story’s) findings, is a pragmatic collaboration between Berlin and Moscow that at the same time is a bitter rivalry. What these two powers certainly share is — beside a great sympathy for socialist collectivism — a fierce anti-Americanism, regardless of Germany’s supposed commitment to NATO and despite Russia claiming, since the days of “perestroika”, to be friends with the West.
However, is that assessment of a continuing call it Nazi, call it Pan-German strategy still valid today? Hasn’t Moscow outmanoeuvred Bonn/Berlin? What has become of Kohl’s ambition to be the celebrated father of German unity? Was it a wise decision to take in sixteen-plus million East-German communists (so to speak), who then immediately started worming their way into the former West-German structures (the most prominent example to this day being: Angela Merkel)? Clearly, something has gone severely wrong for West Germany and Kohl’s (inherited) pan-German project, despite the “European integration process” having come indeed very close to exterminating every aspect of the inidividual European nation state. As, the decisive question really has to be: Who is in the driver’s seat? Is the EU geopolitical monstrosity still a pan-German endeavour, or has it been hijacked by the (unchanged) Soviets?
THE HARD LEFT TAKES OVER, HIJACKING PANGERMANISM FOR THE GOALS OF THE WORLD REVOLUTION
Well, Helmut Kohl’s chancellorship came to a close, after 16 long years, in 1998, when his CDU/FDP (conservative/liberal-democrat) coalition lost the Bundestag election. The new government was henceforth, for the next seven years, a coalition of the social democrats under Gerhard “Ja-ich-bin-Marxist“-turned-“Genosse-der-Bosse” Schröder and the Green watermelons (you know: heavily red on the inside…) under former far-left street-fighter Joseph “Joschka” Fischer. Also, the former East-German Socialist Unity Party (SED), that had essentially carried on as “Party of Democratic Socialism” (PDS), though always under the watchful eyes of the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution), had meanwhile reached over 5% of the vote and thus 36 out of 669 seats. Despite new Chancellor Gerd Schröder’s much-advertised “pragmatism”, the election outcome meant a dramatic shift to the left, and much farther to the left than under Willy Brandt roughly 30 years earlier.
What’s more, following the lost 1998 election, Helmut Kohl stepped down as CDU party chairman and was succeeded by Wolfgang Schäuble; Schäuble chose as his general secretary “Kohls Mädchen” Angela Merkel, who had already been since 1991 a member of Kohl’s cabinet, first as Minister for Women and Youth, then as Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. Merkel was now only one step away from the party leadership. Then came that memorable November 1999, when Helmut Kohl, since 1998 the party’s honorary chairman, was suddenly confronted with a party funding scandal which then also damaged the new party chairman Wolfgang Schäuble. Kohl stepped down as honorary chairman in early December. On December 22, Angela Merkel, who had only been general secretary for one year, attacked Kohl (and indirectly party chairman Schäuble) in a guest article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, calling on the party to “learn to walk; it must dare to take up the struggle with political adversaries even without its old warhorse, as Helmut Kohl often liked to call himself. Like a pubescent youth, it must break away from the parental home and go its own way.” In other words, Merkel now felt strong enough to reach out for the party sceptre herself and to mercilessly knock the old guard off their pedestals, by which she fulfilled Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn’s prediction made in 1990 about communist “cuckoo-egg” politics:
Optimistic expectations of long-term Western dividends from Western support for ‘perestroika’ are doomed to disappointment. Present Soviet-Western cooperation is only temporary: the East-West alliance is only tactical. Soviet-style democracy is ‘cuckoo-egg democracy’. When the chick hatches, it will display its true antagonistic nature and seek to dominate the nest.
Helmut Kohl’s “eternal crown-prince” and still-party chairman Wolfgang Schäuble proved unable to fight back and, as he was drawn into the widening donation scandal himself, stepped down on February 16, 2000.
Merkel made use of her position as a fairly recent and thus uncorrupted figure in the party and was elected CDU chairwoman on April 10, 2000 (one week after Helmut Kohl’s 70th birthday), receiving 897 out of 935 valid votes (a dream result of nearly 96%, reminiscent of the “other” Germany that had been Angela Merkel’s home for 36 years). Quite a few heavyweights inside the CDU, among them Friedrich Merz and Volker Rühe, as well as CSU-chairman Edmund Stoiber, weren’t especially happy with Angela Merkel ascending the CDU’s party-throne, and not just because of their own ambitions. Worse, the German intelligence service BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst) allegedly warned the CDU of Merkel as being dangerous (unfortunately, American geopolitical analyst J. R. Nyquist has never been able to extract from his contact in Germany the actual source of this claim). Sadly, according to that claim, those warnings were dismissed by the party. Elected party chairwoman, Merkel was now in the comfortable position of being able to prepare, slowly but surely, for her ultimate goal: the chancellorship.
While the CDU was making its most consequential — and most fatal! — personnel decision since its foundation after WWII, not only for the party itself, but even for the whole of Germany and beyond, the new Red-Green coalition government, that had only been sworn in in late October 1998, was already busy reshaping the country along revolutionary lines.
Among the three Green ministers in Gerd Schröder’s cabinet, all of which were “former” Marxist or Maoist radicals, it was especially Jürgen Trittin, in his position as Minister for the Environment and Nuclear Safety, who was rigorously pushing what the anti-nuclear/Green movement had been calling for ever since the seventies: a complete exit of Germany from nuclear energy (Atomausstieg), which soon was to be carved in stone as a gradual plan that should be complete around the year 2020. However, and in line with the eco-communist demands of the 1992 UN Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro (chaired by long-time UN figure and former Canadian oil manager Maurice Strong, who then in 1994 put together, with Gorbachev, the so-called Earth Charter), the anti-industrial sentiment of the German Greens also was against coal- and gas-fired power plants (thus the demand for an overall Energiewende, i.e., an energy transition), as they claimed (and still claim today) that the earth was threatened by a catastrophic rise of atmospheric temperatures (a.k.a. “Global Warming”) due to the industrial output of carbon dioxide, which they wrongly define as a pollutant and a major greenhouse gas. As the leading climatologists of the world (that is to say, those who haven’t sold out to the hysterical “climate change” bandwagon), have shown, this is not so; rather, the ups and downs in CO2 in the atmosphere merely follow the ups and downs in global temperature by a time lag of about 800 years. So, carbon dioxide — and thus man — is virtually irrelevant as a driver for the earth’s climate. What is relevant, however, are the cycles of increasing and decreasing sun activity. But this climate change madness has meanwhile grown into a widely accepted “orthodoxy”, with exception of such “heretical dinosaurs” as current U.S. President Donald Trump (who may well represent the very last obstacle for world communism to establish global dominion).
There were other signs, too, indicating that this German Red-Green coalition government was a communist Trojan horse working against the best interest of Germany. The infamous Hartz-IV laws, rather than creating incentives for the unemployed, arrested them in their dependence on the state. Schröder made no secret of his personal “sauna friendship” with Vladimir Putin, whom he even praised, ridiculously, as a “flawless democrat”. Also, Germany denied then-U.S. President George W. Bush, in 2003, troops for his war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, arguing there was no clear evidence Iraq had been involved in the 9/11 terror attacks. Finally, in 2005, the last year of its power, the coalition was shaken by a scandal easily of the magnitude of the 2015 “refugee crisis”. As turned out, the German Foreign Office headed by Joschka Fischer had ordered a whole number of German embassies in Eastern European countries, including “former” Soviet republics other than the Baltic states, to issue without further adue and without any financial background checks hundreds and hundreds of thousands of “tourist visas”. The German embassy in Kiev alone issued between 1999 and 2002 approx. 890,000 (!) tourist visa limited to three months. What became of these “tourists” who suddenly invaded Germany and the EU’s territory, remains a mystery to this day (though it is fairly obvious that most of them were part of the criminal underworld). The German Bundestag set up an investigation, but nothing came of it. Rather, Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer in those hearings boldly schooled the MPs of the conservative and liberal-democrat parties that the times of nation-state thinking were over anyway.
In this context, it may be worth mentioning that the first great EU eastward enlargement of 2004 (that incorporated eight “former” communist states, plus Malta and Cyprus) took effect not on January 1 or April 1 or July 1, but on May 1, International Workers’ Day, the high day of international communism: a rather broad hint to the fact that this supposed EU eastward enlargement was a clever Soviet westward enlargement, instead. Below: German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer and his Polish colleague Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz in comradely embrace in that night of April 30/May 1, 2004 right on the Oder bridge that connects the German town of Frankfurt/Oder and the Polish town of Słubice (which had been until the end of WWII German and part of Frankfurt).
Given the recent SPD losses in various regional elections and ever stronger signs indicating Chancellor Gerd Schröder, after seven years of chancellorship, was getting tired and worn-out, Angela Merkel’s CDU was expected to easily win the snap elections set for September 18, 2005 and form a right-of-centre coalition with her declared favourite, the Free Democrats (FDP) under Guido Westerwelle. Opinion polls looked encouraging right until election day. But throughout that summer, it seemed Angela Merkel wasn’t really campaigning all that much. Was she trying to lose? Was she headed for a grand coalition with the social democrats, trying to exclude the FDP from power? The election results then came indeed as a big surprise: Both social democrats and CDU/CSU (who had stood equal in the 2002 election at 38.5%) had lost significantly, the SPD by 4.3 percentage points, while the “winning” CDU/CSU had dropped by 3.3 percentage points, as well. A CDU/CSU-FDP majority was missed, while Red-Green had lost its previous majority also. The only realistic option (apart from a theoretical far-left three-party coalition of Red-Green with Die Linke and a just as unlikely three-party coalition of CDU/CSU-FDP with the Greens) was a coalition of CDU/CSU with the SPD. And so the social democrats, though no longer the strongest party, stayed in government, and a substantial policy shift towards more conservatism did not come to pass. Here is the first round-table talk on election night with the six party chairmen, Angela Merkel (CDU), Edmund Stoiber (CSU), Gerhard Schröder (SPD), Guido Westerwelle (FDP), Lothar Bisky (Die Linke) and Joschka Fischer (Greens).
ANGELA MERKEL AND THE NEW ERA OF “NORMALISATION”
The first woman chancellor in the history of Germany quickly introduced a new style. A style that avoids the spectacular and bombastic (which her predecessor had been into), but that is nevertheless effective: a dry and calm resoluteness coupled with a good portion of secrecy (in other words: she does things the good old East-German way). Angela Merkel always holds her cards close to her chest, so much so that a whole nation of 80 million has been wondering for meanwhile 13 long years what she really thinks and how she really ticks! Her private life is just that: private and confidential. Maybe there isn’t much of a private life anyway: Merkel has no children; she and her husband Joachim Sauer live on the top floor of a 19-th-century apartment building right next to Berlin’s Pergamon Museum; brother Marcus lives and works as a theoretical physicist in the state of Hesse; her sister Irene, an occupational therapist, lives in Oranienburg outside Berlin; the father, Horst Kasner, passed in 2011; mother Herlind Kasner still lives in Templin, meanwhile age 90. Angela Merkel’s recreational pleasures are modest: she and her husband (who by his paleness still doesn’t seem to have arrived in the West to this day) own a little house in the Uckermark, not far from Templin, where Angela Merkel grew up; otherwise, the two follow a strictly regular vacation routine every year that consists of a trip to the Italian island of Ischia for Easter, hiking holidays in the Vinschgau in South Tyrol in summer and a winter vacation (cross-country-, not downhill skiing) in the Swiss Engadin. Not to forget the couple’s supposed great love for opera music, especially Wagner, for which they regularly attend the Bayreuth Festival. However, there is no passion or love or warmness of the heart visible with these two “ex-” communists. It’s the exact brittleness and discreet coldness (even emptiness) — mixed with a great deal of petty-bourgeois, proletarian simplicity — the old GDR had been famous for.
So, this was now the new face of Germany: and although 35.2% of the valid votes (or 27.35% of the electorate) had chosen her, it still looked as if people didn’t quite know what to make of her. In any case, her whole meteoric rise — improbable as it was — was soon accepted as either the result of a chain of amazing coincidences or simply the product of relentless ambition and hard work.
But hadn’t there been a “first life” of Angela Merkel’s? A first life of thirty-six years in communist East Germany the public knew almost nothing about? And why was Merkel (like her family, like the whole “former” GDR) so very silent about those years? Hadn’t they all been out of themselves with joy when on that historic night of November 9, 1989 the Berlin Wall “fell” (as a matter of fact, the Wall fell into the West)? Well, obviously many, if not most of them, weren’t. Here is a more than ominous video-clip about the lady who was really the first East-German to cross the border between the two German states on November 9, 1989. Annemarie Reffert (46 years old at the time), a medical doctor from Magdeburg, had heard at exactly 7:04 p.m. on East German radio Central Committee member and Secretary for Information Günter Schabowski’s announcement of an immediate, unconditional and permanent travel permission into the West for all citizens of the GDR. She made sure she had heard correctly by listening to the following news broadcasts, even double-checked with West-German television, took her 15-year-old daughter and off they went in their Wartburg passenger car — out of mere curiosity — towards the main East-West-German border crossing of Helmstedt/Marienborn, only some 60 km from Magedeburg. By 9:25 p.m., the two had managed to convince the clueless East-German border officers that general travel permission had indeed been given, and so they carried on into West Germany, where they briefly circled through the quiet border town of Helmstedt and, being without any Western currency, soon returned to the East and home to Magdeburg. On their way back, again at the border, and this is why she has reached some prominence, Annemarie Reffert was briefly interviewed by a West-German camera-team. Here is that economic exchange (in the video below, from 1:55 to 2:17), that should make us think, as it is so symptomatic:
INTERVIEWER: Are you planning to “smell Western air”, so to speak, more often in the near future?
A. REFFERT: Yes, perhaps for visiting, just so as to take a view of your way of life, but never for good. You know, you are an entirely different society, and I have no inclination to live with you. For visiting, yes.
What this cold and chillingly indifferent answer tells us is that East Germany was far from longing to join the West. The opposition within the GDR consisted chiefly of reform-communists who wanted to maintain (in accordance with Gorbachev’s intentions) a separate socialist East Germany on a more liberalised basis. A genuinely bourgeois-conservative political force was just not there after fourty years of rigid authoritarian communism.
This was Helmut Kohl’s unforgivable miscalculation! His enthusiastic promises to the impoverished East-Germans of soon-prosperous landscapes didn’t materialise as quickly and easily as people were expecting. And so the initial euphoria over a unified Germany (certainly much exaggerated by the West-German media) soon gave way to a great deal of frustration in the “new” German provinces, which then could be nicely exploited by the old communists now gone underground. As a result, just a few years after the fall of the Wall, a spooky GDR- and even Soviet nostalgia was on the rise (a development that went in parallel with that in the other “former” satellite countries). All kinds of GDR- and Soviet memorabilia, old GDR films, product brands, clothing, military items etc. were popular as never before. People were now ignoring the fact they had been living under a tyranny (which many of them didn’t bother, in the first place) and were instead romanticising the “cosy, socialist homeland” they had lost as the better Germany that should never have been dissolved. A number of movies were made, some of them tragicomedies, that in one way or the other idealised the GDR past. The boldest and most perfidious piece in this avalanche of retro-communist propaganda was probably the 2003 blockbuster film Good-Bye Lenin! that, seen in retrospect, almost prepared the ground for Angela Merkel’s chancellorship that began two years later.
Good-bye Lenin! is a witty, yet visibly tendentious, satire about a mother, school-teacher and convinced communist in East Berlin who a month before the fall of the Berlin Wall suffers a heart-attack and falls into an eight-month coma, by which she “misses” the implosion of the communist regime and the dramatic changes in East-German life in the months after. Her son, who had never been a friend of the communist oppression, but is very caring, gets instructed by the doctors as the mother awakes from her coma in June 1990 that all excitement and irritation would have to be thoroughly avoided. The mother is still weak and needs to stay in bed, and so the son, with the help of his sister, a new work colleague and even neighbours, creates for his mum the convincing illusion that the GDR is still alive and well and nothing has changed. In addition, during his many hospital visits, whilst his mother is still there, he falls in love with a charming Russian nurse! Together with his friend, he secretly attaches a video-recorder to his mum’s television, by which they play to her, exact to the second, at first old East-German news reels and finally self-made daily “evening news”, that even use authentic news footage, but with his colleague as the “news anchor” adding the necessary spin that explains all images away in the most absurd manner. The mother, ironically, swallows the charade. At some point, she becomes aware, from her window, of loads of West-German cars out in the street, but her son’s “news” programme finds an explanation for everything. The son is desperately searching for old East-German product packagings (such as pickle jars), assembles a group of neighbours for his mother’s birthday, who then sing the good old communist GDR songs and so on and so forth. His sister as well as the Russian nurse, with whom he is now in a romance, insist he should stop the illusion and tell his mother the truth. Finally, the nurse does so, without telling her boyfriend. The mother has another heart attack and soon dies, while her son is convinced his mother has passed in the comfort that her beloved socialist system was intact as ever, having produced for her a last “news” item in which Erich Honecker is succeeded by the son’s personal hero, East-German cosmonaut Sigmund Jähn, impersonated by a lookalike taxi driver, who opens the Wall, after which East Berlin gets happily flooded by the capitalists from the West who at long last have come to their senses! – Here is the official trailer:
The film is not just reflecting an existing mood in former East Germany, but powerfully amplifies that longing back for the old communist days (as well as advertises GDR-style communism to the Western audience as something good and desirable). It was made by a West-German film-maker, but the Stalinist Left of the East and the liberal Left in the West have always been working hand-in-glove from both sides of the fence, even now as that fence has supposedly disappeared.
Now under Comrade Merkel (who seems to be determined to stay in power for the next hundred years), a strange and boring new normal has established itself in Germany, most likely the kind of “normalisation” the communist rule-book speaks about when it describes the final and ever-lasting triumph of communism. In this case, the transfer wasn’t brought about by violent revolution or an invasion of Soviet armies, but simply by bringing a decade-long gradual process to its logical conclusion. Only two years after Merkel’s election victory of 2005, the European Schengen space, that had initially defined a compound of West-European EU countries that had abolished their mutual border controls, but of course had continued controls towards the East, was ruthlessly and most irresponsibly extended by a cordon of “former” communist states. As a result, henceforth communist mafiyas and illegal immigrants alike could enter Western Europe completely free and unchecked. This deplorable state of affairs won’t be corrected either, as the European Union’s declared goal is a borderless, post-nation-state federation. However, extending the EU deep into “formerly” communist Eastern Europe has sealed the fate of Western Europe as it irreversibly opened the door to being swallowed, hugged to death, whatever expression one prefers, by Moscow — showing the way towards a unified, all-communist Eurasia from the Atlantic to Vladivostok. Sure enough, Angela Merkel frequently terms Russia “Germany’s strategic partner”, and no uproar anywhere, given the fact that Germany is a member, at least in theory, of the Western alliance.
As for Angela Merkel’s “conservatism” (after all, she’s been since 1990 part and since 2000 the leader of the Christian-Democratic Union), it appears almost non-existent. Think about it: This woman has been married twice, and although it is not really known why, she seems to have remained childless because she wished so. Not much is known about her first marriage, that was only brief, but it appears it was more a marriage of convenience so the two young people, Angela Kasner and Ulrich Merkel, could more easily obtain an apartment of their own (under communism, everything is strictly regulated). Since the mid 1980s, Angela Merkel (she has kept her first husband’s name to this day), has been together with her present husband, the quantum chemist Dr. Joachim Sauer, whom she knew from her work at the East-German Academy of Sciences. However, although being from 1990 onwards an increasingly prominent figure in Helmut Kohl’s conservative Christian Democratic Union, Angela Merkel only married Dr. Sauer on December 30, 1998, after she had been elected general secretary of the party on November 7, 1998 in the aftermath of the lost Bundestag election that year. In other words, also her second marriage was a mere pragmatic thing undertaken so as to further her career as she was nearing the chairmanship of the party. What does that tell us about this “Christian” politician’s moral or religious framework? Is she a Christian, to begin with? Conveniently (which made her an attractive choice for Helmut Kohl to take her under his patronage), Angela Merkel was the daughter of a (Protestant) pastor. Yet, again, a closer look is necessary. Horst Kasner, born 1926, was a young West-German Lutheran pastor, who had just graduated and started a family. His first child Angela was still born in Hamburg in the summer of 1954, after which the whole family moved to East Germany, where Kasner had been offered a church post. Horst Kasner wasn’t inimical to socialism. On the contrary, he developed a great ambition in somewhat trying to lead Christianity and socialism together. He called it “Church inside Socialism” (Kirche im Sozialismus). Others soon nick-named him “Red Kasner”. Indeed, Horst Kasner became known as a man with excellent connections to the GDR’s more progressive theologians and thus to the system itself. The first three years, he was still a regular pastor in the small village of Quitzow in north-western Brandenburg. In 1957, he was invited to build up a religious seminar and pastoral college outside Templin. The estate, known as Waldhof, that from 1958 also hosted a home for the mentally disabled, soon grew into a much-respected meeting place for intellectual discussion, beyond the narrow confines of the official state ideology. Horst Kasner could freely order books from the West and was also permitted to go on a number of journeys to the West. Another interesting fact is that Horst Kasner was closely involved with Clemens de Maizière and Klaus Gysi, the fathers of Lothar de Maizière and Gregor Gysi respectively, who were both to become important political figures around the time of the German reunification and after. Young Angela appears to have admired her charismatic father. Although she did not undergo the socialist DDR-Jugendweihe, but still the traditional Protestant confirmation, she was nonetheless a member of the communist youth organisation FDJ (Freie Deutsche Jugend) early on, which wasn’t compulsory and also unusual for pastors’ children to join. In school, she particularly excelled in maths and Russian, even won nation-wide Russian olympics and was soon thinking of studying physics. Unlike children of less socialist-minded pastors, who normally stayed out of the FDJ, Angela Kasner had no difficulty to be admitted to a university. Later, in her twenties, she even was a functionary in the FDJ. Here is a short clip from a 1991 interview with Angela Merkel conducted by the German television channel ARD (Merkel was already Minister for Family, Seniors, Women and Youth in the newly formed, first all-German cabinet Kohl IV at the time), in which she kind of answers the question about her membership and activism in the communist youth organisation FDJ:
Merkel says here: “I liked being in the FDJ, I have to say, as for a sub-activity within the FDJ, where one was also doing things — in seminar groups, among young people at the institute — that had little to do, basically, with the system and its ideology. That I want to admit. But otherwise it was also 70% opportunism, of course.”
As so often, the “admission” doesn’t clarify much at all. An alternative way of looking at this video is by turning off the audio so as to be able to fully concentrate on Angela Merkel’s facial expressions. What one can see, at first, is the usual behaviour of liars: she is tensed; she searches for words; she looks down. Throughout the clip, she displays defiance, denial, evasion. The essence being: she was an activist in the communist party youth organisation, way beyond her own youth years, but not really a communist and never a member of the communist party itself. How credible is that? The absence of proof of her having been a party member doesn’t prove anything. So many secret files were destroyed in 1990, so much evidence simply disappeared overnight! A whole nation of communists had miraculously dissolved into thin air — and out of that new thin air, they act thick as thieves as ever before. Hardly anybody speaks out. Over the whole reality of former communist East Germany rests an impenetrable veil of secrecy.
And then there’s Angela Merkel’s claim that she chose physics as her field of study (as if people had been entirely free in communist countries to choose whatever they liked, which certainly wasn’t the case at all), because physics, she says, was the least politicised and ideologised of all. Which is funny, as following this logic, she should never ever have shown up in politics altogether.
With regard to Angela Merkel’s apparent Christian formation in a pastor’s household (though her father was fervently pro-socialist anyway and did in 1989/90 in no way favour a German reunification), Angela Merkel herself has nullified the naïve preconceptions about her growing up as a pastor’s daughter in the midst of a hostile atheist society:
One doesn’t become a believer simply by growing up in a parsonage. But of course I was thus imparted with some ethical principles. (Translation by this author. German source: Koelbl, Herlinde. Spuren der Macht: Die Verwandlung des Menschen durch das Amt. — Eine Langzeitstudie. München: Knesebek, 1999. p. 49. – Via: Reuth, Ralf Georg, and Günther Lachmann. Das erste Leben der Angela M. München: Piper, 2013. p. 65.)
That’s a classic communist statement! Marxist-Leninists have no religion (other than their own faux-religion of dialectical materialism). And so, whenever they find it appropriate to conceal their atheism, or to send mixed messages, they talk about “ethics” (as opposed to religion). Angela Merkel was allowed by her Red Pastor father to join the communist youth movement, and that’s where she received her real formation. At home, she wasn’t surrounded by a pious atmosphere either, as her father was basically a socialist church politico.
This author happened to have on his many journies also numerous conversations with people from Eastern Europe. And they possess, after decades of the most painful experience, a sharply trained eye for identifying communists; after all, they have lived under them. What these people — more than one — have told this author about what they think of Angela Merkel is stunning: They say there is no other way for Angela Merkel than being: KGB! That assumption, that “gut feeling”, would make perfect sense. Isn’t she the “teflon chancellor”, on whom nothing ever sticks? And hasn’t she been nick-named even, after the spider, the “black widow”, as she has left behind, without batting an eye, dozens of men with their careers destroyed, because they just happened to stand in her way up to the very top? The naïve would say she is yet another ruthless career politician who has learned her trade from her political mentor Helmut Kohl, who too was a power tactician par excellence.
But let’s listen to the account of a former CDU MP, also initially from the GDR, who has a lot to say about Angela Merkel and where Merkel has led both the party and Germany. Vera Lengsfeld, born 1952, wasn’t a lifelong enemy of the communist system; on the contrary: her father was a big gun in the GDR’s state security, she herself studied in Leipzig an academic field about as communist as it can get: history of the labour movement! After that, she went to Berlin to study philosophy, which in the GDR’s context only meant philosophy from the ideologically charged standpoint of Marxism-Leninism. Vera Lengsfeld also joined th GDR’s ruling communist party, the SED, age 23. Starting around 1981, now-Vera Wollenberger, she was part of all kinds of pacifist and other opposition groups (which, too, is unconvincing as for a possible change of heart, as most of these groups were simply “reform-communist”). Yet, by 1983, her activities appear to have annoyed the Party that much that she was thrown out. In January 1988 (less than two years before the fall of the Berlin Wall), Vera Wollenberger was still a committed communist, albeit a critical one, trying to remind the GDR authorities of the lack of freedom of speech in communist East Germany. Along with dozens of others, she had planned to show up at the annual official Lenin-Liebknecht-Luxemburg demonstration on January 15, with banners of Rosa-Luxemburg quotes that weren’t especially flattering in the light of the GDR’s communist reality. Vera Wollenberger was at first sentenced to six months imprisonment, but was then offered a two-year study term in Oxford, England, instead, from where she returned — supposedly for a visit and as a strange coincidence — on precisely November 9, 1989, the day the Berlin Wall fell. Vera Wollenberger immediately became politically active again, joined the East-German Greens and was elected, in March 1990, to the first “post-communist” People’s Chamber of the GDR, where she was deputy chairwoman in the committee for disarmament and defence until the German reunification entered into legal force and the GDR thereby ceased to exist on October 3, 1990. Vera Wollenberger was among those who were swiftly integrated into the new all-German Bundestag in Bonn, where she continued to be a representative for the Green Party (that is notoriously a far-leftwing party). Not before 1996, as she didn’t like the prospect of a Red-Red-Green three-party coalition of SPD, PDS (the former GDR communists now posing as the “Party of Democratic Socialism”) and her own party, the Greens, she switched to Helmut Kohl’s Christian-Democratic Union (CDU), keeping her formerly Green mandate in the Bundestag. From that time until 2005, Vera Wollenberger — after her divorce from her second husband in 1991, again Vera Lengsfeld — remained a member of the German Bundestag. Ironically, following the election that brought the CDU under Angela Merkel to power, Vera Lengsfeld lost her seat, never to return to the Bundestag again. In recent years, she has popped up in right-wing nationalist circles and has promoted a so-called Joint Declaration 2018 (Gemeinsame Erklärung 2018), in which the Merkel government is harshly criticised for its immigration policy. That petition was signed by over 160,000 Germans and was handed over to the German Bundestag, where in autumn there will be a brief hearing in the Bundestag. It is not quite clear whether Vera Lengsfeld, who once was a dedicated GDR communist and never renounced her communism really, is driven here by mere genuine concern or is engaged in “rightwing-Bolshevist” activism, by which the German population is intended to be ever further polarised.
Be that as it may, in the talk embedded below, Vera Lengsfeld shares a number of observations with regard to Angela Merkel that are both interesting and credible. Lengsfeld looks back on Angela Merkel’s phenomenal rise and recalls how suspiciously smoothly Merkel had risen through the ranks already in the last year of the old communist GDR; how she was immediately hired and then made speaker for the Democratic Awakening by Wolfgang Schnur (a dubious lawyer and church politico, who at the same time worked as an informant for the GDR’s infamous state security a.k.a. StaSi); how she soon after became a deputy speaker for the GDR’s last Prime Minister, Lothar de Maizière (also a lawyer, also a church politico and also a StaSi informant, who falsely claimed to have never met Angela Merkel before although he had been for years a close friend of Angela Merkel’s father, Horst Kasner); how, after Lothar de Maizière’s StaSi activity had become known, she was chosen instead by Chancellor Helmut Kohl as an East-German member in his first all-German cabinet starting in early 1991; how everybody who knew her was surprised she had ended up with the Christian Democrats, rather than with the Greens or the social democrats; how she fiercely hated the very party to whose leadership she now belonged; how she immediately pursued a hard-left feminist policy as Minister for Women and Youth and later, as Minister for the Environment, single-handedly signed international eco-agreements that were against the economic interests of Germany; how she coldly threw her mentor and the party’s honorary chairman Helmut Kohl as well as party chairman Wolfgang Schäuble under the bus and ruthlessly grabbed the party chairmanship for herself; how she pretended, from 2000 till her election victory in 2005, to be holding clear-cut libertarian free-market positions, which all of them she skipped after she became Chancellor, including those she could have easily pushed through against her coalition partner SPD; how her real favourite coalition partner has never been, as widely reported, the Free Democrats, but is in fact the Greens, with whom she has had no opportunity yet to form a coalition except for 2017/2018, for which the Liberal Democrats would have been needed too, who finally quit as they saw no prospect to realise any part of their political programme. Vera Lengsfeld also says that Merkel’s strange change of heart following the Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011, which led her to revoke the extension of operational lifetimes for German nuclear power-plants agreed upon the year before, was simply a concession to the Greens for a possible joint coalition government in the future. Below: Angela Merkel’s much-discussed black-green necklace that she wore ahead of the 2013 elections. It was widely understood as a political message to the effect that she indeed wanted to get rid of the Liberal Democrats and instead form a coalition with the Greens. The former came to pass: the LibDems for the first time in the history of the Federal Republic did not make it into the Bundestag. The latter, however, did not materialise, although CDU-CSU and Greens would have had a comfortable majority of 374 of 631 seats: after long hours of exploratory talks, the Greens quit, much to the regret of CDU-CSU — and Angela Merkel found herself again in a grand coalition with the social democrats.
Merkel, says Vera Lengsfeld, has effectively killed the old Christian Democratic Union since she became Chancellor, that now exists solely in name, but has become yet another eco-socialist party, a party also where debate or democratic controversy have completely ceased to take place. Merkel controls the CDU with an iron grip, with all potential rivals long ousted or marginalised. Vera Lengsfeld even says that the German Bundestag has been reduced by Merkel to a mere rubberstamp parliament (apart from the depressing fact that 80% of the laws in EU member states are not made in those national parliaments but in Brussels). Lengsfeld says German MPs have been gently corrupted, bought, by a whole array of new parliamentary posts and functions, which has created much more frequent opportunities to travel and enjoy the good life of being a “busy” parliamentarian. The decisions, however, are made by Merkel’s government alone, with the parliament no longer observing its responsibility of controlling the government. Even with the new coalition partner FDP, from 2009 to 2013, there was no substantial change, says Lengsfeld. Also, the chaos during the 2015 “refugee” crisis could have easily resulted in total catastrophe, had there not been a tremendous amount of work done by private volunteers. Vera Lengsfeld also emphasises that the new coalition agreement between CDU/CSU and SPD for the term 2018-2022 is much more socialist than the last, as Merkel had no choice but to give the social democrats everything they wanted. During the mass immigration of 2015 (and ever since), asylum laws have been misused as if they were general immigration laws (less than 1% of “refugees” have been granted asylum status, but everyone was allowed in anyway); thus, says Lengsfeld, the rule of law in Germany has been critically undermined and is in danger of collapsing altogether. Also, the Dublin Regulation has been practically brushed aside, that foresees that no country should be obliged to accept an asylum seeker who has applied for asylum in another country (which means that by existing laws the EU’s and Angela Merkel’s intention to spread “refugees” across Europe far and wide, without member states being able to say no, is null and void). Lengsfeld also points out that Germany’s new so-called Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (Network Enforcement Act) is but the introduction of internet censorship against conservatives through the backdoor of averting “hate speech” and “fake news”, which, she says, is completely unconstitutional, as it puts an end to free speech for “right-wingers” (“right-wingers” meaning everyone who has simply maintained his common sense and who dares make statements based not on utopian beliefs, but on reality), while the left, even the radical left, can say and do whatever they want, as hateful leftwing propaganda (even intimidation) is not perceived as hate by the equally leftist mainstream, but as rightful indignation etc. Vera Lengsfeld says that while communist East Germany (where she comes from) needed paid personnel for surveying the population and that StaSi officers even had to make sure they kept their informants happy, by being friendly, handing them little presents etc., the situation now is that whole (invisible) armies of radicalised people engage in a culture of denuncation all for free, without any payment whatsoever. Lengsfeld mentions in this context, which is quite an irony, a woman who is at the forefront of this phenomenon, Anetta Kahane, who is also from the GDR, a radical leftist, daughter of a fierce GDR-communist and herself once an informant for the GDR’s state security during the years 1973 to 1982. Here is a quote from same lady, taken from an article of Der Tagesspiegel, dated July 15, 2015 and titled “Flüchtlinge in Deutschland: Es ist Zeit für einen neuen Aufbau Ost” (i.e., Refugees in Germany: It Is Time for a New ‘Aufbau Ost’ — Aufbau Ost was the term for West Germany’s gargantuan project of bringing East Germany gradually up to West-German standards); English translation by this author:
In the East [of Germany — i.e., in the former GDR], there are still, relative to the population, too few people who are part of visible minorities, who are e.g. black. And there is a structural change going on, whole areas are becoming depopulated….If I had a wish free, I would say: It is time for a second Wende [a term that refers to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent reunification of the two German states in 1989/90] and a new Aufbau Ost, infrastructurally, emotionally and culturally….One has to want this, one has to realise that in the East there is a greater lack of experience in dealing with foreigners and more resistance….[It has been] the greatest admission of bankruptcy on the part of German politics after the Wende [to have allowed for] one third of the German territory to remain white….Willy Brandt [West Germany’s Chancellor from 1969 to 1974, SPD party chairman till 1987 and President of the Socialist International from 1976 till 1992] spoke of the growing together of what belonged together, and meant the white Germans…This has triggered a nationalist boost. A couple of millions of others were downright forgotten. If that were now to come to an end, I would find that superb.
These radical networks use character-assassination and pressuring people out of their jobs, without hesitation. People who not too long ago would have been under surveillance by the Verfassungsschutz are now the ones who are pressing for a draconic limitation of free speech, and all under the banner of “anti-Fascism”. Vera Lengsfeld concludes that the true and ultimate culture of denunciation wasn’t under the GDR, but has established itself now, and she says all this is the result of the Merkel years. Vera Lengsfeld warns that the Euro crisis is far from solved and Europe’s immigrant crisis isn’t over, but has just begun. The CDU/CSU-SPD coalition agreement supports French President Macron’s plan of redistribution of wealth from northern European to southern European states; it intends to let Germany pay for all of the EU’s losses due to Brexit and foresees even costlier contributions to various EU projects. With regard to the continuing influx of immigrants, the government seems to be planning to deceive the public, officially speaking of maximum 180,000 to 220,000 per year, but in fact allowing “family reunification”, by which the number of immigrants can be easily multiplied (especially as the term “core family” seems to be interpreted very generously, also with respect to second and third wives, although polygamy is prohibited in Germany, as well as child-wives, which suddenly has all become acceptable, even to the feminists). Whereby the joining relatives are not included in any official statistics at all and actual asylum seekers are not affected by this theoretical limitation of 180,000 to 220,000 per year. What’s more, says Lengsfeld, the EU’s Relocation and Resettlement programme will make sure that all this continuing immigration will be forced down everybody’s throats by all means necessary, including deception, and bringing these people in in a more “discreet” and less visible fashion than was the case in 2015. Vera Lengsfeld expects Germany’s social system to collapse as a result of these policies, overall national bankruptcy and eventual civil war (noting that there exists no historical precedence for such a political programme). She mentions the critical situation in Sweden, where certain areas have become ungovernable due to mass immigration, and believes that Germany is headed in the same direction. Vera Lengsfeld then points at the problem of Arabic clans infiltrating the Berlin police and at the common estimate that already a quarter of all personnel of the German military are Muslims (which raises urgent questions about actual loyalty), a development greatly pushed by Germany’s Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen. Lengsfeld says it is now declared policy to accept ever more Muslims not only in the military or the police, but even as border officers — with qualification standards being pushed down in order to get them in. She mentions an interview of February 20, 2018, given on German television by (German-origin) Harvard political scientist Yascha Mounk, born 1982, in which the moderator asked (starting at 1:21; translation from the German by this author):
Where should one see the causes for this development? Why has the fundamental trust in established politics gone down so heavily?
Yascha Mounk’s answer:
The populists have been on the rise over many years, in many countries. This means one has to also look at things comparatively. And there are three causes that are very important: First, the economic stagnation, where despite the nation’s relatively good position many people feel they aren’t really much better off than their parents once were and their children might not be able to enjoy the same standard of living in the future. Second, that we are daring here a historically unique experiment, namely to transform a mono-ethnic, mono-cultural democracy into a multi-ethnic one. This can work, and I think it will work. But of course this implies a number of [social] dislocations. And third, that this anger, this fury against the political class gets concentrated through the internet, which makes it so much easier to drop hate comments, to engage in propaganda and also to get organised politically on behalf of extremist politicians.
Yascha Mounk had already said basically the same thing back in September 2015, which was at the height of the European “refugee” crisis, in an interview to the German weekly Der Spiegel. His key sentence here was even bolder. Yascha Mounk said (English translation by this author):
Above all, this is about more than a brief, xenophile summer fairytale. In Western Europe, an experiment is underway that is unique in the history of migration: Countries which have defined themselves as mono-ethnic, mono-cultural and mono-religious nations must change their identity. We do not know whether it will work [!], we only know that it must work.
Vera Lengsfeld rightfully asks: What experiment? By whose decision? And who has ever asked us whether we want this “experiment”? And she goes one layer deeper yet and mentions the United Nations’ so-called Global Compact for Migration, that was signed by all UN member states (the U.S. under Pres. Trump has left the accord in late 2017), integrated into EU legislation and foresees, as Lengsfeld explains, under the pretext of compensating for Europe’s disastrously low birthrates, the resettlement of 60 million people, mainly from Africa, into Europe. She emphasises that that number of roughly 60 million can be constantly heard from all sides. Vera Lengsfeld says Angela Merkel would have loved to become UN Secretary General and now has her eyes fixed on the post of President of the European Commission (as Jean-Claude Juncker might soon step down); otherwise she would try to run yet another time in 2021 and stay in power until 2025 (Merkel would then be 71 and would have been Chancellor for unbelievable twenty years)! Lengsfeld says Merkel increased Germany’s payments to the UN single-handedly, without authorisation by the German Bundestag. With respect to these detailed written coalition agreements in today’s German politics, Vera Lengsfeld, who has been in the German Bundestag from 1990 till 2005, reminds her listeners that under Helmut Kohl or earlier there had not existed such a thing. The parties involved merely reached a general consensus over what they intended to do, while the actual decision-making was left to the course of the usually four years of joint governance. This allowed for necessary flexibility in government, while the present obsession with determining things all in advance effectively excludes the parliament from the legislative process, says Lengsfeld (in other words, the executive branch swallows the powers of the legislative branch, by which all Checks and Balances are annulled). Vera Lengsfeld also criticises Merkel’s current cabinet as a cabinet of incompetence. And she describes how the social democrats, as a party, still had enough vitality to resist Martin Schulz’s attempt, after he had lost the 2017 election, to simply transfer the chairmanship over to Andrea Nahles, which was then forestalled by commissioning, in accordance with the party’s statutes, a provisional chairman (Olaf Scholz); two months later, at an extraordinary party conference, Andrea Nahles was then formally elected the new party chairwoman (and so on April 22, Lenin’s birthday). In Angela Merkel’s CDU, says Lengsfeld, such courage to resist has long vanished. Finally, Vera Lengsfeld summarises that Angela Merkel, who had ended up in 1990 with the CDU rather accidentally and who had always hated this party, nevertheless managed to gain total control over it and to effectively destroy it, Lenin-style, so as to be able to use it as a vehicle (essentially, as an empty shell) for her own political ends. One woman against this once-powerful men’s club of the CDU, and she alone prevailed. By Merkel’s work of destruction, says Lengsfeld, the CDU, the party that was the engine of success and the guarantor of the rule of law for the Federal Republic of Germany in the decades after WWII, is no more. Yet, without this force of political stability and economic prudence, asks Vera Lengsfeld with great concern, what will become of the Federal Republic of Germany in the future?
And here is Angela Merkel giving her programmatic speech at the CDU’s 30th party conference of February 25/26, 2018 in Berlin. Watch how she adresses her party: This is power. And the party visibly obeys. Sure enough, the speech is followed by endless standing ovations that may have pleased even the likes of Stalin or Mao Zedong.
Almost as a confirmation of the above, here is Gregor Gysi, since 1990 strongman of the communist SED’s successor party (that’s right: they simply carried on…), Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS), which was renamed in 2005 to Die Linke (The Left). Gysi, born 1948, has his own past as a party member of the SED since 1967, as a GDR lawyer working as a StaSi informant and who has certainly remained, along with his whole party, a committed Marxist-Leninist, even though The Left’s newest party programme only twice mentions Marx and only four times uses the word “communist”, and always in a strictly historical context. In this 25-minute interview, Gysi speaks about Angela Merkel. He is very much pleased, even amused, with the way she has these “slightly arrogant fellows” of the CDU, and even of the SPD, under her control. He looks back to the period when Angela Merkel became chairwoman of the party in early 2000 and concedes that what greatly came to her assistance was the crisis the party was in at the time (following the party donation scandal). He appreciates her “humility” and “politeness” that, says Gysi, contrast with her predecessors’ much greater presumptuousness etc. etc. — It all sounds like one East-German communist praising another…
Here is another prominent conservative voice speaking out: Gertrud Höhler, born 1941, studied literature and art history. In her younger years still somewhat a liberal, she more and more turned to conservatism in the seventies and eighties. She worked at the universities of Mannheim and Paderborn as a lecturer and then professor of German philology and literature. In addition, she has been a communication consultant for various organisations, companies and political parties. In 1993, she quit her job at the university and has been ever since a publicist and public figure, much hated by the Left, but sadly also connecting herself now and then with actual nationalist groups (nationalism being not the business of patriotic conservatism). Despite these, if only sporadic, connections — and despite a certain degree of vanity and feminist extravagance, which are both common among career women — Gertrud Höhler is worth listening to. On April 28, 2016, she gave a talk at the Bibliothek des Konservatismus (Library of Conservatism) in Berlin, titled “Regieren ohne Opposition: Wie verwundbar ist die Demokratie?” (i.e., Governing Without Opposition: How Vulnerable Is Democracy?). Gertrud Höhler’s talk is basically a philosophical discourse about values and the question of a natural (and thus workable) concept of man. At the same time, it is a very concrete analysis of the “Merkel phenomenon” and what it means for democracy and the rule of law, in Germany and beyond. The conclusions that logically follow from this analysis couldn’t be more sobering.
Prof. Höhler first takes a look at the Germany of the year 2016, that has already seen eleven years of Angela Merkel as Chancellor. She registers a gradual dissolution of the political centre in Germany. CDU and SPD, the two once-great people’s parties of whom everyone used to know what they stood for, have now frighteningly blended with each other. What’s more, says Höhler, Angela Merkel has led all other parties into a dilemma: while in opposition, they nevertheless appease, as they all seek to be part of a future government coalition with Merkel’s CDU (by which there is hardly any control function being exercised by the Bundestag vis-à-vis the Merkel government any more). As soon as they have an actual opportunity to engage in a coalition, however, they fear — with good reason — to get ever more reduced by Merkel in such a joint government, as Merkel’s manner of doing politics is quietly and quite shamelessly stealing political positions from other parties. As a result, those other parties, whether it’s the social democrats or the Greens or the liberal democrats, lose their own particular “brand”, their once-characteristic profile. Angela Merkel undermines them all. Also, what Merkel calls the “modernisation of the CDU” is but a departure from the value system of this once-conservative party. She has moved the CDU heavily to the left and has thus made politics into a business of fluid and random decision-making. No explanations are ever given, and hardly anyone still dares to ask questions anyway. An autocratic style of governance has taken root, with the autocrat being able to hold on to her power not due to some personal charisma (there is none), but due, solely, to consistent and continuous secretiveness. And it is precisely through such an aura of mystery that Angela Merkel acquires the position almost of a demigod, a position not unlike that of the totalitarian rulers of the communist world, where Angela Merkel comes from: she makes mistakes after mistakes and yet remains “infallible”. Nobody really knows where she is headed and why she is doing what she is doing, yet — the few remaining vestiges of genuine political discourse aside — there is no serious public debate. A general fatalism and cynical apathy and indifference have developed among Germans that all-too-fatally remind of the general powerlessness and agony under the Ulbricht and Honecker regimes in communist East Germany. German democracy is in danger of quietly going out the window — while the new formations on the political margins, that are eager to benefit from the growing discontent, won’t be able to be dealt with simply by calling them “populists”. The new reality, says Gertrud Höhler, is that elections won’t be decided in the political centre any more, but on the margins, and this trend hasn’t yet been properly understood. And even those margins are undergoing some curious changes, with politicians of The Left sometimes promoting right-wing positions and vice versa. Merkel, says Gertrud Höhler, is a virtuosa of political contradictions: her policies are usually presented as “without alternative”, yet she herself has always a number of options, or alternatives, to choose from: Angela Merkel, the queen of uncommented alternatives. Whereby Merkel’s secret of success is her utilitarian use of law and values. There are no fixed principles, everything’s flexible and arbitrary. Merkel’s silent authoritarianism is nothing less than a quiet coup d’etat. Gertrud Höhler mentions the Euro crisis, that has not been solved, but extended. She says the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and all related policies have made out of formerly sovereign nations, colonised vasall states. Germany has destroyed a lot of trust and sympathy by this rigid, dictatorial financial regime. The austerity measures have not only arrested the economic development of these countries by easily a decade, but have unnecessarily humiliated these nations, who now hate Germany and are seeking revenge. “Might gives right” seems to be the new formula — but Germany has overreached herself. What’s worse, the problem isn’t solved at all. Gertrud Höhler believes that the only way out is that the financially strong countries leave the Euro, not the weak countries. Höhler cites Prof. Udo di Fabio, former German Constitutional Court judge, Director of the Institute for Public Law at the Rhenish Friedrich-Wilhelm University, Bonn, and political publicist: “The evil lies in the Euro.” The 2015 so-called refugee crisis has shown a number of serious law violations Angela Merkel got away with. In an opinion paper on the Immigration Crisis as a Federal Constitutional Problem dated January 8, 2016, Prof. di Fabio writes (translation by this author):
The federal government is obliged, by constitutional law…, to resume effective controls of the federal borders if the common European system of border protection and immigration gets, temporarily or permanently, disturbed…. The Constitution does not guarantee protection for all people around the world by factual or legal immigration permission. Nor does such an unlimited legal obligation exist in European Law or International Law.
Compare this to Angela Merkel’s cold and dictatorial comment (or, as usual, non-comment) about her irresponsible and unlawful allowing of the 2015 so-called refugee crisis. She said:
I want to remind, for a start, of the fact that the images that went around the world were not the ones of my visit to the reception camp at Heidenau [Saxony; Merkel was confronted there with furious protests against her “welcome policy”]… but the ones showing citizens who on the morning after this decision were receiving people at the railway stations in Munich and elsewhere, who as a matter of course were offering help, many thousands of them. And at this point, the world said: This is really a beautiful gesture. And it came right from people’s hearts. And, quite honestly, I have to say that if we should now begin to have to apologise for showing in emergency situations a friendly face, then this is not my country. [Well, it isn’t and it never was…]
She also boldly told her party colleagues in the Bundestag in late September of 2015, after heavy criticism from her own party CDU and its sister party CSU:
I don’t care whether the influx of refugees is my fault. In any case, they are now here.
One could call this the politics of fait accompli!
However, says Gertrud Höhler, Angela Merkel appears to have decided for a path of ruthless de-nationalisation no matter what. But, says Höhler, such utopian internationalism, or pan-Europeanism, is too much for people to handle. It stubbornly and most irresponsibly ignores their need for a homeland with which they are familiar. And also, says Höhler, what hubris to think one could ever “integrate “, just like that, the remotest cultures into a Western society! But this “masterplan” of forcing an impossible multi-nationalism (or multi-culturalism) upon people also harms the countries the immigrants have come from. Tricked into leaving for a questionable existence in Europe, these young people (most of them men) are increasingly missing back home in their own countries. In other words, all sides are losing and are getting traumatised — and all because of a geopolitical fantasy in which Germany seems to try to attain the position of a “humanitarian super power”. This mad activism, this unhinged “do-gooderism”, even goes beyond the mere issue of immigration. It goes after banking, after the automobile industry and certainly after the energy industry. These are now all “culprits”, and as such they are being ever more cut back, patronised and ultimately nationalised by the state. Angela Merkel, says Gertrud Höhler, uses “humanitarianism” as a cloak for what Höhler calls Risikopolitik (i.e., hazardous politics). Her course is directed against the interest and well-being of the people and is only continuing because the public is not getting informed. By her migration “deal” with Erdogan of Turkey, she has even emboldened Erdogan in his notorious despotic tendencies. Germany has become dangerously accustomed to Merkel’s abuses. Borders lie open; the societal fabric of old is about to fall apart; control has been lost, probably irreversibly; no accountability, and no reliability either. While Merkel continues to govern — nay: rule! — unconcerned and unhindered, breaking daily the oath under which she was sworn in (translation by this author):
I swear that I will dedicate my strength to the well-being of the German people, increase its benefit, avert harm from it, preserve and defend the constitution and federal laws, thoroughly fulfil my duties and exercise justice toward everyone. So help me God.
And isn’t it interesting that this “ex-communist” geopolitician has on her work-desk a picture of “enlightened” 18th-century despot, German-born Catherine the Great, Empress of Russia, whose geopolitical concept was known under “New Russia”, a formula that, at least in name, has been adopted by current Russian (read: Soviet) President Vladimir Putin?
Prof. Höhler’s assessment implicitly, but nevertheless precisely, describes Angela Merkel as a Leninist in action. As this is what Leninism is about: no fixed principles or values or even rules, but only this one goal: the advance and ultimate victory of the Revolution. Seen in this light, we understand that Merkel’s task is to prepare Germany and Western Europe, in coordination with her bosses in Moscow, for the most rigid communist tyranny. All this reminds one of the American situation, where Hillary Clinton, had she won the 2016 presidential election, would have followed the exact same path of national liquidation, completing the work of destruction begun by Comrade Barack Obama. Actually, Angela Merkel appears to be the German Obama, and the two seem to have been very much aware of this striking parallel in their respective missions.
Communism is the cult of internationalism, of the erasal of national borders and of any national sovereignty or identity whatsoever. Lenin’s evil legacy is a world unified not in friendship or intercultural understanding, but in a state of all-encompassing amorphousness and emptiness. After all, the communists are the followers of the religion of the great nothing, whose only power consists in its ability to — like a black hole in space — swallow every aspect of human civilisation.
But, are there signs also in other German political parties indicating a shift towards an undeclared one-party state? Yes, there are. On July 26, 2011, the German television channel ARD aired a 90-minute documentary titled Sozialdemokraten — 18 Monate unter Genossen (i.e., Social Democrats: 18 Months among Comrades). It was basically a portrait of that party from within, with countless interviews and film sequences made over a period of one and a half years. At precisely 30:22 till 33:34 running time (the video is linked further below), there is a brief segment filmed in April 2010 in Berlin at the left-leaning Hertie School of Governance’s award of their annual Speaker’s Prize, “Best Speaker of the Year” (the chosen winner, conservative Karl Theodor zu Guttenberg, however, refused the award). Within this segment, from 32:09 till 33:34, there are shown some comments towards a mainly Social Democrat audience, including their chairman, by German Green, Jürgen Trittin, who is generally held as being part of the “left wing” of the Green Party and by some, due to his arrogance, as a “salon Stalinist” – one could easily term him as well as the Al Gore of Germany; under the Red-Green Schröder/Fischer coalition government from 1998 till 2005, Trittin had “served” as Federal Minister for the Environment and in that function pushed forward Germany’s gradual “Atomausstieg”, i.e. complete exit from nuclear energy, by the year 2022 (his Comrades in “Russia” and Eastern Europe, on the contrary, keep building nuclear power plants, so why can’t Germany???). Trittin talks here, quite sportively and sympathetically, about the speech of Social Democratic Party Chairman Sigmar Gabriel, who is present in the audience, at the SPD’s Party Convention at Dresden on November 13, 2009, and Trittin makes a more than revealing point that illustrates the all-Marxist cooperation between Social Democrats and Greens, and what their programme really is, and always has been, about. Jürgen Trittin elaborates (translation by this author):
The next political speech is headlined, I quote: “Speech by the Chairman of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, Sigmar Gabriel, at the SPD’s Federal Party Convention at Dresden.” That speech was a success, but it turns out that these two hours also have their pitfalls. Because there are also some weak passages in them, if I may say that. 164 times the speaker pronounces the word “Comrade” [Genosse oder Genossin], thus on average once every 44 seconds. My teacher would have scored here: “Repetitive mistake”. One of the most-cited sentences of this speech goes: “The political centre is not defined by income- or professional groups, and by the way also not by certain political views to which one would have to adapt. The political centre of Willy Brandt was something entirely different. It was no distinct place, but it was the prerogative of interpretation [Deutungshoheit] in society.” Prerogative of interpretation, that’s the key term in this speech, and that means something entirely different than mere majority appeal. Rather, it goes back to Antonio Gramsci’s term of Hegemony. [Sigmar Gabriel nods silently.]
Trittin’s “clarifying” remark comes indeed as a bomb-shell: Antonio Gramsci was the co-founder in the early 20th century of the Communist Party of Italy and has become famous for his strategic ideas quite contrary to classical Marxism, namely that first the cultural and spiritual base of a society needs to be destroyed before the revolution can be successful, an approach similar to that of the infamous Frankfurt School. It is interesting that a so-called “Green” politician, speaking to Reds, makes this conspiratorial reference to communist Gramsci and his idea of “hegemony”: it means no less than across-the-board domination of the political debate, more than that: of any political thinking whatsoever, in other words: effective tyranny that’s generally accepted by the population due to the strategistis’ recipe of gradualism. No doubt Angela Merkel is part of that strategic design.
There was one more stunning moment in this documentary where Andrea Nahles, who is today chairwoman of the social democrats, says with regard to her party’s (as well as the Greens’) endorsement of Joachim Gauck for Federal President of Germany in 2010 (57:50 – 58:02; translation again by this author):
And that’s how I would like to see things going in the future: that the SPD enables policies, but does not seek to dominate. This is not a bad course for the future, I think.
What a frank admission: It means, if one reads between the lines, that it is indeed secondary who is in government and who is in opposition, as all parties (maybe with exception of the liberal democrats and, more recently, the nationalists of the AfD) discreetly cooperate towards the same revolutionary goal anyway. — To watch this documentary, click on the picture below (again, the Trittin quote is 32:09 – 33:34; the Nahles quote is 57:50 – 58:02):
How desperate the German situation has become since 2005, when Angela Merkel became Chancellor, shows this half-hour satire that was aired in 2009 on the German TV channel ZDF at the instance of the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The programme’s title, Der schwarze Kanal kehrt zurück: Die Geschichte der DDR, wie sie wirklich war (The Return of the Black Channel: The History of the GDR as It Really Was), was of course an allusion to communist East Germany’s most deadly propaganda programme Der schwarze Kanal (The Black Channel), that was aired from 1960 till 1989, always with the infamous Karl-Eduard von Schnitzler. Here, in this clever 2009 satire, that was made as if it was a documentary, we “learn”…
…that the GDR’s rigid authoritarian system was actually fun and the strict collectivism merely took a general desire to conform into account “more consistently”. Mass rallies were actually popular with the people, but unliked by the leadership. The state security, by their correct and polite behaviour, had full support from the population. As a consequence, everybody wanted to work for the StaSi, for the sake of adventure. This huge reservoir of personnel has then been used, and is still used today, as organised “masses” at official state visits, by which the ordinary people could comfortably stay at home. GDR cosmonauts took part outside Moscow in the simulation of space flights, in film studios that were also used by NASA [!]. Also, the widespread opinion that most GDR citizens were watching West-German television is a myth. No indication for that: people loved their East-German TV. In many cases, East-German shows were in fact providing West-German producers with ideas. Also, the notion that East Germany had full employment solely because people weren’t working enough is wrong: people didn’t work at all, Erich Honecker’s motto being: if the proletarian doesn’t want to work in a workers’ and peasants’ state, he shouldn’t be forced to work; it’s enough that everybody assumes that everybody else is working. The GDR economy: a giant alibi operation. Even the National People’s Army (NVA) was bluff, with inflatable tanks, fighter jets and missiles, as the GDR’s leadership was strictly pacifist. The Wall became necessary only to hide the fact that nobody was working and the country was unarmed, and meanwhile this technology is being exported into the whole world. While in the GDR 10% of the population were working for the StaSi, in West Germany it was one third. East-German rock bands active in the West caused significant damage for the West’s economy and were filling people’s heads with junk. The GDR leadership was absolutely convinced that sooner or later capitalism would collapse. With Western loans flooding in, Erich Honecker finally had the brilliant idea of re-opening the Wall so as to accelerate the ruin of West Germany. The events at the press conference with Günter Schabowski on the evening of November 9, 1989 were in fact a play written by Erich Honecker and dramatised by amateur actors. The West gets flooded with East Germans, people who don’t know each other from Adam hug and embrace each other, all because Erich Honecker wants it — while Helmut Kohl is eager to write history whatever the cost. Kohl buys the GDR: a financial fiasco for West Germany, that is now trapped. Erich Honecker leaves the scene, for Chile. His longterm plans still need to be kept secret for another twenty years. Shortly after his arrival, he receives an East-German visitor, a scientist by name of Erika, to whom he says: Today we will set the course of history. There will be written history today in our garden. Erich Honecker appears to be giving an order to this visitor, who is a former Free German Youth secretary. After Honecker’s driver has taken that lady to the airport, he realises she has lost a folder in his car. As he examines the content, he looks at a twenty-year plan titled “Catching Up without Overtaking”, that foresees a global financial crisis for 2008; omnipresent surveillance; all key positions in Germany will be held by East-Germans; big corporations will have been nationalised; banks will be put under state control; the victory of socialism will be imminent. For, the young woman from Honecker’s garden in Chile is today Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany.
This film satire was actually aired on the exact day of the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, on November 9, 2009 at 11:50 p.m., after meanwhile four years of Merkel! What does this tell us? First, satire, in order to be effective, always needs an element of truth. And second, satire comes in frequently as a last line of defence, when open debate has collapsed and tyranny approaches. The reader is greatly encouraged to watch this extraordinary time document, perhaps one of the last attempts to wake up an asleep public to the ever-more obvious reality that Angela Merkel is a communist Trojan horse. (3 Parts; turn on YouTube’s translation function!)
As if to confirm what was to be aired later that day, Angela Merkel had arranged, somewhat aside from the great anniversary celebrations and not much publicised, for a more than symbolic event during the day: she met with die-hard Leninist and faux reformer Mikhail Gorbachev, communist puppet Lech Wałęsa, slightly suspicious once-GDR pastor and soon-to-be Federal President Joachim Gauck, Vera Lengsfeld, then-Federal Commissioner for the StaSi Records Marianne Birthler, lifelong communist chansonnier Wolf Biermann and a number of other people for what looked like a jolly Mayday parade that led them across the very bridge where twenty years earlier, according to official history, the first East-Berliners were allowed over into West Berlin. The irony is that this bridge, that hasn’t been renamed since the days of the GDR, is named Bösebrücke (though it’s sometimes also called Bornholmer Brücke), after a communist “martyr” who died in a Nazi concentration camp during WWII; hold your breath: “böse”, as an adjective, means EVIL. So, they were crossing, both in 1989 and 2009, the evil bridge!
f
Five years later, at the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Wall, Wolf Biermann played an even more prominent role: the supposed “ex-“communist, who still sings his old communist songs and is still celebrated by the same people who celebrated him fifty years ago, was invited into the German parliament, the Bundestag, where he was to sing his 1968 song, Ermutigung (Encouragement).
However, as was to be expected, Comrade Biermann didn’t restrict himself to what he had been invited for, namely to sing, but felt entitled to give a 5-minute political speech, in which he attacked the representatives of The Left, who are basically the heirs to the old GDR’s Socialist Unity Party of Germany, as being the miserable remnant of the old brood of dragons, whom he, as a professional dragon slayer back in the days of the East-German communist regime, cannot possibly beat up, with heroic posture, as they are already beaten. When Biermann begins his little manifestation, President of the Bundestag Norbert Lammert (who was the one who single-handedly invited Biermann) interrupts him and reminds him of the Bundestag’s parliamentary rules, by which only elected representatives are allowed to give speeches. Biermann, lifelong communist rebel, simply gives back that he didn’t shut up in communist East Germany, nor would he do so at this present occasion. The parliament replied with wild applause (one can even see, which is a scandal all for itself, Angela Merkel joining in the general jubilations supporting Biermann making a mockery of the rules of procedure of the Bundestag). Biermann, the “ex-“communist communist, even lectures The Left that they aren’t left, nor right, but “reactionary”. After the performance of his song, Biermann receives personal congratulations from President Lammert for his silver wedding on that day of November 7, 2014 (he actually married his present wife two days before the fall of the Wall). Biermann makes clear, however, that what they really celebrate on this November 7th is the “great socialist October Revolution”. So much for “Biermann, the ex-communist”…
Who would have thought before the German reunification that one day old East-German communists would sit in the Bundestag (apart from the Greens) who would be attacked, from the floor, by an old East-German communist star chansonnier? An all-communist farce indeed! — If one keeps in mind the additional problem with German politics, namely that it is a Pan-German endeavour (though greatly undermined by Moscow), for which the so-called European Union is merely a cloak, one can get quite easily, and thoroughly, disgusted by political Germany altogether.
Two years further ahead still, on November 15, 2016, Wolf Biermann turned 80. Three days after his birthday, on Friday, November 18, 2016, Biermann gave a birthday concert, at the invitation of Ullstein publishers, at the Berlin Ensemble theatre, which once had been communist icon Bertolt Brecht’s theatre in the early days of communist East Germany. The choice of location: a clear message in itself. Several high-profile politicians attended the event, among them also “Christian-Democrat” Chancellor Angela Merkel, accompanied by her equally East-German husband Prof. Joachim Sauer. Surprisingly, mostly invisible Prof. Sauer, who appears to be befriended with Wolf Biermann, gave the laudatory speech. Here are the only thirty seconds from that speech this author could find, whether as text or as audio (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcdkwdfz0GA). Translation and bold print, as always, by this author:
When I watched in 2011, at the Böll Foundation, the film about the Cologne Concert [of 1976, after which Biermann was expelled from the GDR], when I also watched — while preparing my speech — Carsten Krüger’s film, Mensch Biermann [1977], I was speechless: “To this communist you were listening at the time?” I asked myself. “His songs were your sarcasm, your bold jokes, your cheerfulness, your lighthearted comfort, your encouragement?” I must have completely disregarded this side of Biermann’s at the time.
You see: These East-German (as well as Soviet) com-munists, who during the last thirty years have set themselves up in the power centres of the West, are most frivolously laughing at us! In an allegedly post-communist world, that is in reality, Gramsci-style, characterised by across-the-board communist dom-ination, a communist can be unashamedly communist without being recognised as such, because he doesn’t stick out any more against the overall backdrop of a society that has become thoroughly communist, too! And here they were, at Wolf Biermann’s birthday concert: Both, Prof. Sauer and Chancellor Merkel, dressed in ostentatious existentialist black — like two grinning apocalyptic crows heralding destruction — with Prof. Sauer indeed wearing a Mao suit!
AFTERTHOUGHT
This article has been particularly painful to write. Not that this author were German, he isn’t. Yet, the fact that the destiny (or rather, fate) of the nations of Europe is now being determined by these two equally totalitarian powers is fairly disheartening, to put it mildly: a “post”-Nazi Germany, that has continued, ever after 1945, its same pan-German project of a German-controlled Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals, and a “post”-communist Russia, that has remained as Soviet as ever and has successfully wormed itself into the halls of power of Western Europe (and of the West in general), working on its ever-same goal of liquidating any nation state whatsoever, including proudly nationalist Germany. Thus, Germany and Russia, despite their shared socialist outlook, by the end of the day will be deadly rivals and enemies. Right now, they use each other, but both of them know too well that they cannot trust each other. The United States may have been, traditionally, the communists’ “main enemy”, their main obstacle and thus their main target (China & Russia even plan the complete depopulation of America!), but it is Germany who is the communists’ main rival for world domination!
What’s more, as communism has made itself widely “invisible”, there is no significant anti-communism left, whether in Europe or in the U.S. (although we might underestimate President Trump in this regard). After all, how can one fight an enemy, that allegedly isn’t there? It’s now all a “soft” tyranny, gradual and way more sophisticated. It’s no longer the openly oppressive “dictatorship of the proletariat”, but – as Anatoliy Golitsyn explained – an all-encompassing “state of the whole people”, that insidiously draws everybody in. Also, such Gramscian-Leninist approach avoids the emergence of martyrs to become recognised as martyrs. Instead, it’s a perfidious process of silent, Orwellian ostracisation of those reactionary dinosaurs who stubbornly oppose the collective; in earlier days one would have said: who refuse to submit to the “party line” – which is precisely what the term “political correctness” means and where it comes from.
Back in the old days of the overt, Stalinist model, anti-communists could still identify the threat, and even idealistic communists trapped in the rigid and painful tyranny of “real socialism” were able to point a finger at the sclerotic, heartless old men in the Politbureau. Had they not been “truthful” communists dreaming of a juster world, but wholehearted Christian believers, their outcry would have been pretty much the same.
Bettina Wegner’s “Kinder” (1976); a recording of 1978:
© The Contemplative Observer 2018
THE CONTEMPLATIVE OBSERVER 