New Year's wishes for 2023: The Ship of Fools or The Dictatorship of Party Democracy

The appearance and reality of democracy in the face of a "turning point in history"

Another year has passed into history. Like no other, 2022 will be etched into Germany's collective memory, and I have already explained that the ominous number 33 hangs over our country like a warning sign: 33 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, on February 27, Chancellor Olaf Scholz heralded the "turning point," in which, in the coming months, Ukrainian Ambassador Andrij Melnyk in particular will ensure that German politicians pledge allegiance to the new development, allowing themselves to be driven en masse into Ukrainian Canossa, to demonstrate Germany's lack of sovereignty and ultimately to push ahead with the militarization of Germany without much resistance, with everything around it being discussed as collateral damage for which Russia, and Putin in particular, bear sole responsibility.

Shortly before, I had published two articles in which I clung to the naive idea that Germany would be able to distinguish itself as a mediator between the worlds. This idea arose from my "respect" for the German chancellor and what he declared in an ARD interview on December 10, 2021, about his intention to follow in the footsteps of Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt. This would have been good for the chancellorship, Germany would have proven that it can act sovereignly – and thus also that it is capable of playing a leading role as a permanent member of the UN Security Council – and the intrinsic value of Europe would certainly have been strengthened by its most important member.

On February 16, I wrote – one day after the press conference during the German chancellor's visit to Moscow –

In this climate, in which German politics must defend itself against accusations of being hesitant in foreign policy matters, Chancellor Olaf Scholz's visit to President Vladimir Putin took place. However, the press conference concluding the visit shows that Germany continues to persistently pursue an agenda that does not go along with every piece of nonsense – even if it cannot escape the chorus of cheerleaders calling for a robust stance toward Russia – and that the Chancellor is certainly endeavoring to follow in the footsteps of Willy Brandt, whose credo was that the security of the enemy is part of our own security.

But he also saw the pressure he was under after his return:

Russia acknowledged this stance and upgraded Germany's status by announcing the withdrawal of troops on the same day. But the movie-like scenario of Russian action is met with a reality in which President Joe Biden misses the opportunity to act as the supreme peacemaker

...

Just one day after the visit, it is clear that the escalation efforts are continuing unabated. The German government is now demanding proof of the partial withdrawal of Russian troops, and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is distancing himself from the German chancellor's statement that Ukraine's accession to NATO is not up for debate. It can be assumed that there will be no shortage of efforts to persuade Russia to completely abandon its security demands, to evade any obligations of its own, to use any hardening of Russia's position as a pretext for aggression and sanctions, and to launch false flag operations. It cannot be ruled out that Russia will have to accept casualties in order to avoid being drawn into a war.

One thing is certain for me: German Chancellor Olaf Scholz could have prevented the war in Ukraine on February 15, 2022. All he had to do was engage with Russia. But by February 22, I had to soberly conclude that this was not the case.

Russia is creating facts on the ground and saying: We are sovereign, we will not allow ourselves to be led by the nose any longer, and we will not be deterred by threats of sanctions.

...

Chancellor Olaf Scholz's visit to Moscow seemed to be the beginning of a dialogue of détente. This prompted my analysis "Dancing with the Russian bear: Bernd Liske responds to Hauke Rudolph." But no sooner had the chancellor returned from Moscow than he was immediately reined in. After a phone call with US President Joe Biden about the visit, it was clear that Germany was gearing up for confrontation with Russia. The Federal Press Office's statement on the phone call said: "Russia must take genuine steps toward de-escalation. In the event of further military aggression against the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, Russia must expect extremely serious consequences."

Is this how you treat a world power that Germany considers one of its most important partners, especially when you yourself said at a press conference the day before: "Now we must work resolutely and courageously toward a peaceful resolution of this crisis. The fact that we are now hearing that individual troops are being withdrawn is certainly a good sign. ... For us Germans, but also for all Europeans, it is clear that lasting security cannot be achieved against Russia, but only with Russia."

...

Russia had enhanced the German chancellor's visit in a cinematic way by withdrawing some of its troops. In my tweets, I have already referred several times to the film "The Sum of All Fears" starring Ben Affleck. In it, Russia avoids a confrontation with the US by withdrawing its troops, which the US appreciates with its own withdrawal. Regardless of how extensive the withdrawal was, this signal of détente could have been picked up on: by withdrawing American soldiers from Eastern Europe, by stopping arms deliveries to Ukraine, by Volodymyr Zelenskyy making a statement on rejoining the Minsk Agreement.

Out of the aforementioned "respect," I long assumed the truthfulness of what the German chancellor expressed at the press conference. I attributed the subsequent political actions of a completely different nature to the fact that relevant actors found ways to align his actions with their own agenda. Today, I am inclined to believe otherwise.

In his speech to the German Bundestag on April 6, he stated that the sanctions had been prepared long before the war began—at a time when an increasingly restless Russia had to realize that any hope of implementing the Minsk Agreement was futile and that it would not receive the security guarantees it desired. The final straw came when President Zelensky fantasized at the Munich Security Conference on February 22 that Ukraine could withdraw from the Budapest Memorandum, which would have been tantamount to becoming a nuclear power.

Over a long period of time, Russia was thus maneuvered into a position where there were ultimately only two options: Russia attacks Ukraine, or Ukraine strikes in Donbass – where Russia had accepted 15,000 deaths over the years. Russia had a choice between plague and cholera: and unfortunately chose plague. But the West had long been prepared for this, so that just three days after the start of the war, the German chancellor was able to give his speech on the "turning point" and sanctions as well as 100 billion euros in special funds for equipping the Bundeswehr were put in place.

The lie becomes the truth of the 21st century.

In a democracy, intentions are pursued quietly.

The relevance of this thesis is supported by statements made by someone who, after years of intense work, one might have assumed would first take some time to relax before perhaps turning to new projects: Angela Merkel. In an interview with DIE ZEIT on December 7, she said:

And the 2014 Minsk Agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time. It also used this time to become stronger, as we can see today. The Ukraine of 2014/15 is not the Ukraine of today. ... It was clear to all of us that this was a frozen conflict, that the problem had not been solved, but that is precisely what gave Ukraine valuable time.

One can only speculate as to what prompted her to undermine confidence in the credibility of her past actions. The former chancellor is not known for not knowing exactly what she is saying. But what could be the reason for her openly admitting here that she has been leading Russia by the nose for years – because the theory that she wanted to prevent Russia from overrunning Ukraine becomes obsolete at the latest if one considers that it was Russia that insisted on compliance with the Minsk Agreement and that 15,000 deaths in the breakaway regions in the following years would have provided sufficient grounds for justifying the accusation, but instead the West made no substantial efforts to push for the implementation of the agreement and, moreover, armed Ukraine.

Was it the effort to relieve the pressure to which she too was subjected that led her to pledge allegiance to the "turning point" in such a way: I was one of you, so I am one of you? In any case, the interview was not an application for the post of UN Secretary-General, and it is certain that it will contribute to the deepening of bloc formation in the international community. It will be difficult to rebuild trust-based communication and conclude treaties because the West is demonstrating to the whole world that its words and deeds cannot be believed and that treaties with it are worthless because it is obsessed with reviving colonial ambitions under the banner of democracy and subjugating the world.

If one compares Angela Merkel's testimony about her own political actions with that of Olaf Scholz, one must unfortunately conclude that yes, this fits with the assumption that the German chancellor is following in the footsteps of his former boss rather than Willy Brandt. But this has consequences. First of all, it makes the trip to Moscow a bubble with no real value, continuing the stalling tactics around the Minsk Agreement. But isn't it true that not only does the international community have to wonder if it can trust Germany's promises in the future, but also that citizens have to ask themselves: What are they actually doing? Isn't it the case that the "turning point" has long been prepared with the aim of weakening Russia in the long term, but that the consequences for our own people were irrelevant? Do the actions we are seeing still stem from an effort to serve the good of the people and protect them from harm?

Germany, wake up. You are squandering your values.

Without values, you are gambling away your future.

Here, too, doubts must be raised, starting with the classification of the speech on the "turning point," which was obviously just a well-planned move in the long-standing implementation of a complex scenario, for which the 2019 Rand Corporation paper, " Extending Russia " – which puts the German chancellor's interview on ARD on December 10, 2021, in a similar light to the trip to Moscow: PR for the West's do-gooders. For the intonation was accompanied by an orchestral fireworks display of immediately effective activities that significantly influenced the ideas I had already expressed several times about the nature of this war, and it is one of the unknowns in this conflict for me why Russia has not — not really until today — and gave reasons for its intervention that could only indirectly serve as such and marginalize the actual conflict.

Atreyu: But then why is Fantasia dying? G'mork: Because people have begun to forget their dreams and lose their hopes. That is how the NOTHING grows stronger.  Atreyu: What is the NOTHING? G'mork: It is the emptiness that remains. A kind of despair. It destroys our world. And I have tried to help the NOTHING. Atreyu: Why? G'mork: Because people who have no hope are easier to control. And whoever controls the world... has the power.

From "The Neverending Story" by Wolfgang Petersen (*1941) based on Michael Ende (1929–1995)

First, we have the sanctions packages that were fired from Brussels even before the first shot was fired in the "turning point," showing that the warheads had long been mounted in the sanctions silos and the missiles refueled, so that the countdown could be triggered at any time. At the same time, as in the wars in Iraq and Yugoslavia, there was carpet bombing. However, this was not about destroying water and energy supplies and other critical infrastructure from land, water, and air: No, the area bombing of this new type of war is carried out by media artillery in the imaginary space of the population with the aim of leaving behind a scorched, Russophobic, monocultural, dumbed-down earth in order to pave the way for sanctions and further measures triggered as a result. The concept of Network Centric Warfare 4.0 finds its way into the imaginary space, from where it affects the real space, and the war in Ukraine is a test bed for this new quality of networked operations, in which sanctions and the media act as the fifth and sixth branches of the armed forces: a test bed also for whose and what qualifications are still needed to overstretch China.

Can all these actions be seen as a response to Russia's aggression? No, definitely not. Despite my early opinion that Russia's war is undoubtedly a crime, it can only be viewed as a singularity in view of the complexity that must necessarily be taken into account, and the perception that the West is waging a war against Russia under the banner of democracy – not only in Ukraine – dominates. There is someone who sees it the same way: Pope Francis. In his Urbi et Orbi Christmas message on Christmas Day, he said:

Our times are also experiencing a serious lack of peace in other regions, in other theaters of this Third World War.

It should be clear to everyone that the war in Ukraine is not a world war, but only one of the theaters of this war, and that despite all the claims, there is nothing to support the assumption that Russia wants to attack the West – but it is very clear that this war involves a large number of nations and is not just a geographical expansion. What is also interesting about the Pope's statement is that he systematically attributes conflicts in other regions of the world to this great war.

It seems impossible to me to consider such action useful for the German people. The fact that Germany's security somewhere in the world is increased by our intervention there does not make it any more meaningful that the closer Ukraine is now to be used for this purpose instead of the Hindu Kush. Neither can such a perspective justify a 20-year war against the Taliban, which has no significance beyond the region – a war we ultimately lost because we did not limit ourselves to a commando operation against Al-Qaeda – nor do the ever-escalating arms deliveries bring us more security, since there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to suggest that Russia is attempting to jeopardize our security. Instead, Russia is concerned with ensuring its own security, and I believe that long-term security problems can be solved not through military intervention but by strengthening the intrinsic value of Western democracies.

On the contrary, developments since February show the extent to which Germany is being stressed and endangered by this policy. Without any need for our country, we have hastily sacrificed the cheap and stable energy supply that has been crucial to our economic prosperity in recent years in favor of uncertain, expensive, and climate-damaging new dependencies, which will result in lasting competitive disadvantages for the German economy in global competition and a multiplication of energy prices for the population. For our country, this means the risk of deindustrialization—especially now that the US is attracting investment with cheap energy and investment programs—lower returns for companies, with consequences for R&D funding and job security, and for the population, a lower standard of living and, for many, impoverishment beyond the limits of social welfare. And we are only at the beginning of a development with implications from the "turning point" that began with the Chancellor's speech on February 27, the speech by Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier on October 28, the opinion piece by the Chancellor on December 5 for FOREIGN AFFAIRS, and the interview with Angela Merkel on December 7.

Just how little such consequences influence political action and how other priorities dominate is evident from some of the statements made by leading politicians. The Chancellor pokes fun at someone who replaced their oil heating with gas heating, former Chancellor Gauck muses that it's okay to freeze for peace, Minister President Kretschmann points out the importance of washcloths for energy security and teaches how to turn down the heating, and Robert Habeck recommends taking cold and shorter showers. Annalena Baerbock sums up the underlying thinking when she says she doesn't care what her German voters think if she supports Ukraine unconditionally. The attitude expressed in this statement is not corrected by the multitude of relief packages, because they are only the background music for the implementation of the primary political goals – which are also manifested in the fact that this thinking knows no alternatives from which a " " reflection can arise as to how Russia can achieve its goals without intervention in Ukraine and how negotiations can work out this result.

A policy that is not designed from the outset to serve the German people and only makes a second-best effort to mitigate the consequences of what has been done requires a people with whom this can be done. I have already discussed the fundamental constitution of our society and its limited resilience to developments that could harm it in the medium and long term on several occasions – 1, 2, 3. The malnutrition caused by the Russophobic pap of recent months has certainly exacerbated this. On the other hand, it follows logically from this how much influence the people could have on the way our country deals with social challenges.

Germans do not like conventional dialogues.

They prefer monologues—they remain silent and think their own thoughts—

or they discuss what moves them with third parties.

The lack of debate leads to a weakness in critical thinking

and from that a lack of teachability.

Such a people—trained in silence—prefers to talk about rather than with each other,

excludes rather than includes, tends to be submissive

than humble and aggressive rather than conciliatory, reinforces appearances

rather than substance, and prefers to strengthen armor rather than morale.

Such a people—equipped with almost everything necessary

to make history—sets out to become history.

It is in their nature.

Anyone familiar with my writings over the years knows that I have always strived to trace this dialectic from action at various levels of society—in particular with the aim of showing how our own actions or inactions affect the big picture.

Increasing self-determination on the part of each and every one of us

makes a contribution to our country similar to that of a drop of water

gives the river its power.

And so, I would like to take a few steps back and reflect on some of my recent experiences – whatever I recommend also stems from my own actions. It's about efforts in the field of education and also about the judiciary, which has become a favorite topic of mine because there – in contrast to many other examples where one first has to agree on the standards by which an assessment of sense and nonsense can be made – the Basic Law, the law, and case law provide standards – normal ones – that can be used as a guide – to measure something. First, a few basic remarks.

For many years, I have been striving to contribute to the further development of our country with my analyses, ideas, concepts, and products. The starting point for this is an education in responsibility and freedom of thought, which often rubs up against things that make you wonder what they have to do with you, but it is precisely this kind of lateral thinking, which is so neglected in our country, that can have a stimulating effect in many areas. In my efforts, I have gained a lot of experience with a wide range of resistance and attempts to curb my work , so that my reflections on this have always taken up a considerable amount of space – a great deal of space in PRISM – A Lesson for Our Democracy, where I processed my experiences in the NSA affair. Since I see neither malice nor self-interest in my actions, but rather a mindset focused on usefulness, I continue to practice it unperturbed—especially since it continually strengthens my competence in this area.

I recently received support from the President of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Thomas Haldenwang, who expressed something extremely important with which he can significantly contribute to the fulfillment of his main task – if he shows "respect" for his own thesis: to protect the constitution.

There is really no other way to express how much one respects this system than by calling on those in positions of authority to take action.

He said this with regard to the public discussion about "Letzte Generation" (Last Generation), but the sentence undoubtedly has a fundamental meaning and is ultimately a recommendation for every citizen: Get involved, come out of hiding, engage with socio-political issues, because your country needs you. However, the meaning of " " only comes into play if you show "Achtung" to the person expressing something and to what they are expressing. "Respect" is a topic I addressed in my New Year's wishes last year – which, I admit, only struck me later in the year – and which led to the idea that it is important to have "respect" for everyone and everything. I recommend that readers delve deeper into the text.

Values fade away if they are not embraced and lived out.

Worthless things spread when you simply accept them.

Just as the environment can turn a dust particle into a snowflake

or lets it fall back to the ground unnoticed,

so too does a thought that strives for the light.

"Respect" in the self-centeredness primarily used by the zeitgeist reduces it to the goal of serving one's own interests: to respect those who are useful to you, to be careful not to stick your neck out too far, to be careful to remain silent. Thus, "respect" goes hand in hand with manifold disregard, and I think that this fate also befalls Thomas Haldenwang's statement.

This contrasts with "respect" as a universal social norm and consideration as food for thought, whereby the focus is not primarily on one's own benefit, but rather on creative engagement with what is being considered. "Respect" is therefore not only an important contribution to strengthening the values to which we feel committed due to our religious and humanistic background, but also, in particular, an important source of inspiration through the engagement that arises from it, and thus an overall contribution to strengthening the intrinsic value of our society. I have written about the process and the possible consequences of this engagement as follows:

And so the opportunity for the West that is being discussed can also be expressed as follows: to combine the humanization of the ape with democracy and to provide the basic innovation of the sixth Kondratieff wave for this purpose. Not to lead the peoples like Moses into the Promised Land, but to motivate and empower them to penetrate deeper into the imagined space, , in order to act nobly, helpfully, and well in the real space from there, : to process impulses, , to search for ideas and alternatives, to develop visions, to question things, to recognize connections, to engage with one's own thoughts and actions. With all the consequences for psychosocial health, climate protection, easing tensions in the world, dealing with technological progress, overcoming challenges such as the coronavirus pandemic, and much more.

The fascinating thing about the general

is the unfolding diversity of the concrete.

The simple answer to the question of what drives human development is then: through engagement with the values to which humanity is already committed, but which it still finds difficult to live by.

From Bernd Liske, "Aphorisms for the Humanization of the Ape"

Let us now turn to two experiences of mine that are characterized by a high degree of "respect." The first example stems from my conviction that I was subjected to criminal activity by the Magdeburg tax office, which was legitimized by the decisions of several courts in massive violation of the Basic Law, the law, and the jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany—as I already explained in my post on November 9. My confidence in my logic and common sense in this dispute is so great that I felt free to publish all the documents relating to it in my current book Willkür – Einblicke in die deutsche (Un-) Rechtsprechung (Arbitrariness – Insights into German (Un)jurisprudence) – even at the risk of making myself look ridiculous.

A jurisprudence that does not follow common sense

is of as little use to the German people as a Bible written in Latin.

My freedom recently led me to attempt to bring the case before the Attorney General. The correspondence that ensued shows that he did address the matter insofar as he wrote to me – but only out of a desire to avoid a confrontation.emühung heraus, sich einer Auseinandersetzung zu entziehen.

The assumption that being far-sighted allows one to

should not prevent one from

sharpening one's short-sightedness

in order to benefit from closer observation.

I would like to illustrate this with an aspect that has significantly influenced my enthusiasm for our law and my efforts to protect it through original use: it is the significance of Section 17a of the Courts Constitution Act (GVG), which states in particular:

(1) If a court has declared the legal action brought before it to be admissible with legal effect, other courts are bound by this decision.

(2) If the legal action taken is inadmissible, the court shall declare this ex officio after hearing the parties and at the same time refer the legal dispute to the competent court of the admissible legal action.

This paragraph reflects the fact that order prevails in Germany – in theory, at least. However, more and more people are failing to comply with it. How do you notice this? With "attention." And so I wrote to the Attorney General in conclusion:

It can be inferred from the GVG that it is aware of the existence of the Federal Prosecutor General. However, it is not aware of the effort to refer a legal action that is considered inadmissible back to the person seeking justice . Nor can the GVG be inferred from a discussion of federal peculiarities to be taken into account that allow you to treat me in this way. Finally, I must apologize for failing to draw your attention to Section 16, sentence 2 of the GVG in our previous correspondence: No one may be deprived of their lawful judge.

In this respect, I regret to note from my efforts on your behalf that you are not complying with the GVG and that your actions are not systematically different from those I have described extensively in my book—from which you might derive the motivation to to revise the GVG in order to have a legal basis for your actions that you can invoke without being confronted with accusations of acting unlawfully.

Being normal without normal makes being normal the norm.

However, I forgot to mention the actual and essential point: Who feels responsible when the existing system fails?

Order and discipline are good. However, if you do not create the opportunity to

to break them, rigidity and stagnation often follow.

What was the value of my efforts? Insight—insight into the tragic state of our society. The attentive reader will be able to conclude at this point what else I did. There has been no response so far.

Let's move on to the second example. On December 7, the VOLKSSTIMME newspaper reported that a number of dignitaries in Magdeburg had joined forces to address the education crisis in Saxony-Anhalt by sending an urgent letter to the state's prime minister, Dr. Rainer Haseloff. VOLKSSTIMME has often stimulated my gray cells, but in this case, I had been mulling over an idea since January 2021 that I believed could solve various problems in the education sector, and I had already done quite a bit in this area since 1998. So I wrote to the protagonists on the same day, and when the Minister President expressed his approval of the effort via VOLKSSTIMME the next day, I wrote to him as well. The response to my initiatives was overwhelming: two of the 11 people I wrote to sent me a confirmation of receipt. Otherwise, nothing happened.

Let's summarize: The Chancellor and the federal government are heralding a "turning point" that suggests that voters, had they been aware of this intention last year, would probably have voted differently on a large scale — because it can be assumed that the resulting exorbitant increase in energy and general living costs, the resulting increase in poverty, the lasting damage to the competitiveness of the German economy, and the threat of deindustrialization in Germany are only acceptable to a limited extent. Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock expresses with her characteristic smugness that she does not care what her voters think. The Attorney General evades his legal responsibilities with a torrent of words, and the Saxony-Anhalt establishment wants to be among itself when dealing with problems that I have been following for almost 25 years and for which it bears responsibility. These examples serve to illustrate a social phenomenon that, viewed positively, leads to one conclusion: we don't care enough about each other.

Our constitution is called "people's government" [democracy] because it is established for the benefit of the majority, not the few.

Pericles (c. 500–429 BC), Athenian politician and military commander

Accordingly, every rational being must act as if it were at all times a legislative member of the general realm of ends through its maxims.

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), German philosopher

While the voters and I strive to live up to the credo of the president of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution and show "respect" for those addressed and their intentions, those addressed demonstrate that they have no "respect": they disregard their statements, their party programs, their oath of office—they disregard what I consider useful for them. All of this is in line with my experience with politics and the establishment itself: the citizen—the sovereign—is not shown any "respect."

In line with these experiences, I found the following on the website deutschland.de, which is run by the German Foreign Office: The right to vote is considered the highest good of democracy. It is probably true that these circles can gain a lot from such a view. Instrumentalizing democracy as a social model, with which the law of the strongest, which has been in effect since time immemorial – can be secured even in civilizational progress, in which people are only free within a certain framework and otherwise pacified as objects to be mothered with tittytainment. However, beyond its limited core significance, this has led to two major developments: The indebtedness of Western countries and other aspects document the failure of the business model in its current form, while at the same time relevant competitors are emerging from other social models – not least because of a different willingness to perform. This alone gives rise to an obligation to question the systemic constitution of our country, to clarify its future viability, and to secure its future viability.

Operating in a state of constant contradiction between appearance and reality weakens democracies from within, causing them to lose both substance and direction and leaving them unable to counter China's dynamism with anything but aggression. A lack of value-oriented leadership, for which empty rhetoric is simply not enough, gives rise to cultures that poison societies from within. Thus, silence as the poison of small-mindedness—not getting involved, speaking disparagingly about those who are not present—is deeply rooted in all levels of society. The same applies to demanding that others be saints and crucifying them for the slightest misstep, while failing to reflect on one's own actions.

Such a people [...] who are not bound by any laws, are inclined to despotic use of their power, and eventually become accustomed to it. Flatterers are therefore held in high esteem by them. What the despot is among kings, such a people is among democracies. Both have similar customs, both are inclined to oppress those who have certain advantages.

Aristotle (384–322 BC), Greek philosopher, student of Plato, teacher of Alexander the Great of Macedonia

From Bernd Liske, "Aphorisms for the Humanization of the Ape"

The word "liberal" means both the freedom of the strong to take advantage of the weak according to the laws of the market, and the equal and effective freedom of all to develop and use their human abilities. However, the latter ability is incompatible with the former. ...

The concept of liberal democracy only became possible after some, and eventually the majority of liberals, found good reasons to believe that the maxim of equal political participation ultimately posed no threat to property, i.e., the continued existence of class society. ...

It therefore seems sensible to examine which path any of the Western liberal democracies can take and whether and to what extent a development in this direction would enable us to install a system that would provide considerably more scope for citizen participation than the current one. ...

And, of course, they had already completed the part of their journey that continues from that reflection of an oligopolistic capitalist market system, the oligopolistic competition of political parties that still prevails in our country, and which is not only not particularly participatory, but is recommended by the majority of today's liberal-democratic theorists precisely because of these anti-participatory characteristics. ...

One condition would be to change the more or less conscious image that citizens have of themselves, so that they no longer see themselves and behave primarily as "consumers," but as individuals who apply and develop their own abilities and thereby enjoy the use and perfection of these abilities. ...

This is the vicious circle: on the one hand, democratic participation is not possible without prior changes in social inequality and consciousness; on the other hand, these changes require more democratic participation. ...

It is becoming increasingly questionable whether and to what extent capitalism, dominated by large corporations, can continue to meet the needs of consumers in the traditional way, i.e., while maintaining the current level of inequality, despite all the economic policy support and control provided by the state.

C. B. Macpherson (1911–1987), Canadian political scientist, from "Obituary for Liberal Democracy"

In this respect, the activation of available human capital and the associated development of the individual from a nurtured object to an individually acting, creative subject, and the further development of the democratic foundation for Western democracies are becoming a matter of survival, and efforts such as mine – of which there have been hundreds in the past and which I assume many people have had similar experiences with, exemplified by the response in the land of #modernDenken to the open letter from the Halle-Saalekreis district craftsmen's association to the German chancellor and the FAZ advertisement by several chambers of commerce and industry, which received little attention – are relevant contributions to this end. The West has failed to capitalize on its lead in civilizational development and has not brought social processes in line with technical and technological developments, which, although leading to a worldwide strengthening of individual opportunities, are now failing to exploit the potential that has arisen as a result – with the consequence that they often manifest themselves in ways that threaten social peace. Instead, it is attempting to abuse its lead for neo-colonial purposes by using the values that have grown out of civilizational progress as demagogic and regulatory weapons to enforce a value-based order that it interprets as it sees fit and in which it dominates.

They hear, they see, they read. They remain silent. They talk.

They ignore. They ridicule. They isolate. They fight.

Why am I doing this to myself once again, breaking into the phalanx of the political mainstream and exposing my activities? Knowing full well that there are quite a few people on my New Year's greeting mailing list – I am thinking of politicians of almost every stripe, managing directors of East German companies, institutes and other structures, journalists, the Bundeswehr and BOS, BITKOM, my private circle, others –

• who, as whisperers, use an interpretable naivety, unworldliness, or some nonsense they've pulled out of thin air to continue their artillery fire and scorched earth policy against my efforts,

• who have remained silent, sat it out, cheated, lied, betrayed,

• who, through their actions or inaction, significantly influence my situation?

Just as environmental toxins decimate flocks of birds,

die in a world marked by intentions,

sensitivities, and ignorance

the delicate souls of feelings die.

Just as the environment can turn a dust particle into a snowflake

or lets them fall back to the ground unnoticed,

so too does a thought that strives for the light.

There are two main reasons for this. The first reason is: I have failed. My efforts to make relevant contributions to developments with my analyses, ideas, concepts, and products, which do not even come close to making the subject of this text possible, were in vain. When a long-time reader of my texts from the Economic Council of Hesse wrote about my blog post on November 9—in addition to extremely critical comments on the zeitgeist —

To me, you are, and I have carefully considered this expression, a wise man. Your thoughts are profound and only become clear after prolonged reflection. ...

With much of what you process intellectually, you cannot assume that you will be understood. I had the feeling before, when I tried to understand your thoughts, that you think in an environment similar to that of Seneca or Demosthenes. Their contemporaries said of both of them, "How beautifully he spoke!" And yet they did and thought whatever was convenient for them at the time.

He sums up what has failed on various levels: bringing about changes that I consider indispensable for a prosperous future. The persistence of the zeitgeist is simply too great.

They tune out because they don't want to hear

what you don't want to tell them.

They listen when they are told

what does not help them.

We must act, they cried. But they meant the others.

That would work, someone said. And they fell silent.

I have known for a long time that decisions arise primarily from relationships and not from utility (suggestion: reread Macpherson above), that the zeitgeist has no use for lateral thinkers (suggestion: reread Aristotle above) and that engaging with socio-political issues is a hindrance when you invest millions in your own software but don't sell enough because you are blamed for it – which is precisely the source of my essential ideas – I long assumed that these were communication problems and that the noble intentions of my efforts were not being recognized. Attempts to compensate for this by revealing my value system and my analysis in many texts – this is how my New Year's wishes came about – had rather the opposite effect, because one consequence was an ever deeper understanding of the nature of our democracy, which was perceived as disturbing, since the dominant appearance does not like it when its often pitiful essence is revealed.

Instead of strong people making weak people strong,

weak people make strong people weak.

Instead of weak people making strong people weak,

strong people should make weak people strong.

So when I express my failure, I hope to encounter readers who have the potential to be more successful, because I am convinced of the need to fundamentally reform our society in order to make it fit for the future. If you will, I am initiating the search for a Prometheus that our time needs if it is to reach a future in which the humanization of the ape is realized.

Must experience follow the first with death, the second with hardship, the third with bread,

follow, the sons again hardship, the grandsons death,

because the spirit of the times, being small-minded, refuses to accept any moral change?

The second reason is based on my conviction that, beyond my general assumptions about civilizational development—such as the consequences of technical and technological progress—two further developments are emerging that have not played a role in my thinking so far. On the one hand, the possibility that Germany will slide into the next war is developing rapidly – which, according to the Scientific Service of the German Bundestag, is already the case due to our training support for Ukraine, but is not yet reflected in the presence of our own soldiers in the immediate war zone and actions on our territory. Given the current spiral of escalation, which currently has no upper limit, this no longer seems unthinkable. Similar to the experiences with the briefing of relevant political decision-makers on the war in Ukraine and the handling of the explosions at NordStream 1, developments may arise in which the political elite fails because it has not built up resilience to the demands placed on it due to its failure to address previous challenges, and because it is now possible in Germany to insult politicians in an effort to incite them to supply even more weapons to Ukraine without any problems and, in particular, without punishment (§ 188 StGB). In an interview for STERN magazine on December 23, Gustav Gressel of the European Council of Public Affairs painted a picture of an impending war between Germany and Russia as a "Christmas message" – in order to demand more weapons for Ukraine – and took the political elite to task:

The problem is that in Europe we are largely dealing with cowards in political leadership positions who, due to the nuclear disparity, do not dare to jump over the slightest hurdle on their own.

...

The alternative to military support for Ukraine is having to wage war ourselves in ten years' time against a Russia that invades our country. Everyone must decide for themselves which they prefer.

Warmongering of this kind (§ 80a StGB) has become socially acceptable again, is sold as a contribution to peace in Europe, and is hyped by the media. One concern after another falls like dominoes, and all scruples are thrown overboard.

They didn't question anything and went along with everything.

They discriminated in their own way and lost their values in the process.

Every era has its own challenges.

One must recognize them and face them.

The future will show us that the second decade of this millennium

will be a significant period in German and European history.

However, it is still unclear whether the future will be squandered or secured.

Added to this is the possibility, which cannot be ruled out, that the policy of "turning the tide" has heralded Germany's economic decline. If either of these possibilities comes to pass, they do not rule out another possibility: that the generation of children and grandchildren will ask their parents and grandparents, as they did before, why they did not prevent it.

The fascinating thing about the general is the unfolding diversity of the concrete.

We deal with singularities

without regard for the complexity that needs to be overcome.

We deal with complexity

without looking at the singularities that need to be overcome.

Be courageous: analyze today and shape tomorrow

in such a way that it also serves the day after tomorrow.

Otherwise, tomorrow you will have to live with the consequences of

what you have not addressed today.

Just as you are already experiencing today.

These reasons make it necessary to activate human capital more quickly to counteract developments that are already well underway. The militarization of Germany is progressing at an alarming rate, and politicians are clearly unable to oppose it on their own, with a submissive population that allows this to happen. In making this assessment, it should be noted that, as a citizen of the former GDR, I was brought up to believe that peace must be defended – which led to a natural affinity for the Bundeswehr and BOS (Federal Ministry of the Interior) and an interest in security policy issues. However, defending peace – or, one might say, striving for harmony – in a highly complex world characterized by self-interest, manipulation, repression, insufficient debate, and, as a result, stupidity, requires approaches and strategies that fully appreciate this.

False politicians, limited to their small ideas, have believed it was easier to govern an ignorant people than an enlightened one, whereas experience proves that the more stupid a people is, the more obstinate and rebellious it is, and that it is much more difficult to overcome the stubbornness of such a people than to convince a people that is sufficiently educated to accept reason of what is right.

Frederick William the Great (1620–1688), Elector of Brandenburg

In my view, sustainable solutions are not possible without showing "respect" to Albert Schweitzer and Pope Francis. And I say this in full awareness of the opposition I will encounter for this alone: websites such as Deutsche Wirtschaftsnachrichten, NachDenkSeiten, and ANTI-SPIEGEL are indispensable sources for strengthening cognitive diversity in our country—an essential prerequisite for the resilience of our society. As Wikipedia says about monocultures in general:

The monoculture farming method offers advantages in terms of cultivation and harvesting, but often does not make optimal use of natural resources such as light and water or synergies between different organisms, and increases susceptibility to disturbances (lower resilience).

The same is true of our society. Contained citizens may be easy to care for, but they do not make optimal use of available resources to strengthen human capital and are vulnerable to disruption – even when climate change puts their resilience to the test.

How lateral thinking emerges from reflection and breaks through its boundaries

forward thinking feeds off lateral thinking and leads it to new shores.

So what can be done? One thing is clear: we cannot let this continue – things cannot go on like this. There is currently no sign of the escalation that has been intensifying for months coming to an end. We are literally waiting for Germany to "finally" deliver tanks, support the next package of sanctions, further restrict civil liberties, and add fuel to the fire: to use this as a starting point for the next step in the escalation, to "finally" advance from the year 33 to the year 39.

German politics lacks a corrective force—lateral thinkers—who critically question intentions and actions, but also recognize and tap into potential. Government and non-government lobbyists drive German politics, and there is no opposition that is significant on relevant issues—as I already explained in my blog post on November 9. The ship of fools that is Germany is overcrowded with egoists, ignoramuses, cheerleaders, and agitators – when what it needs are idealists, analysts, visionaries, and conceptualizers to meet the demands of a sustainable future for our country and prevent harm from befalling it. A logical corollary of this, incidentally, is that Germany's primary problems will not be solved by focusing on the left or the right: We must concern ourselves with the center. In our time, it has a significant influence on the resilience of our free democratic basic order against everything that can stress it: the next NSA affair, pandemics, crises, threats of war. Last but not least, it also determines what can be endured at the margins – as I already explained in my New Year's wishes for 2008.

We need a new quality of service: not a submissive one, but one that, when necessary, does not shy away from confrontation and is geared toward the objective interests of the community.

But how should we deal with the lack of "respect" shown by those who believe they can place themselves above the community and pursue policies dictated by others that do not benefit either the citizens or the nation? Those who increasingly want to control everything and, where they cannot, discredit and fight it in back rooms or publicly—for which the term "lateral thinking," which I so value and which is deliberately driven into disrepute, is synonymous.

If you always set limits for yourself, whether in training or elsewhere, it will spread to other areas, your work, your life. There are no limits, there are only plateaus. And you mustn't stay there. You have to break through them.

Bruce Lee (1940 - 1973), martial artist and actor

It makes no sense to simply accept this and give up—quite a few officials hope that people will treat them in exactly the same way and leave them alone. The examples mentioned demonstrate the effort required to achieve precisely that. Following Joseph Pulitzer, I now have to express one of my recommendations as follows:

There is no crime, no trick, no ignorance, no complacency, no stupidity, no trickery, no fraud, no vice that should be withheld from discussion and disclosure. Respond to their lack of respect with respect, expose their silence as cowardice, their logic as dishonest, their speeches as serving their own interests rather than the common good, their scheming rather than their integrity – but do not ridicule them in front of everyone, because we are a people who only have a future together: do not associate with them, but change yourselves by confronting them. And sooner or later, public opinion will recognize the value. Confrontation and truth alone are probably not enough – but they are the only means without which all others fail.

For everything else, I can refer to the formula for my wishes at the end of my New Year's greetings, which has remained unchanged for years: Let us work together to confront ourselves and our weaknesses more. For our own sake and for the sake of Germany.

"Why is it so dark?" "It's always dark at the beginning!"

Have confidence in yourself, have confidence in yourself.

It has to hurt so that it can heal.

Fantasy can be created anew! From your dreams and wishes, Bastian.

From "The Neverending Story" by Wolfgang Petersen (*1941) based on Michael Ende (1929–1995)

How does that work? Not by torturing ourselves and blaming ourselves or others. No. But by moving a little to the left and right of the path we have taken and taking one or two detours. Not in relation to things that come easily to us. On the contrary, we have to deal with what is difficult for us, what is new to us, where our demons lurk, and what we have rejected until now. I can assure you from my own long experience that this can be fulfilling, fun, and bring relief and take the pressure off.

Being human today often means being different. Being human means that our actions are not determined by the struggle for the golden calf, but by usefulness—

for others, for society, for nature.

Being human means not working behind others' backs, but openly together with others (who may be different and increasingly need to be different):

because otherwise it is not virtuous – not human.

Being human means not being part of a uniform herd, but being an individual

 in the community: And to be good at exploiting individuality within it.

Being human means not being a Christian, but Christ.

Where these sources of new experiences and abilities lie can be very different for each of us: perhaps making problems transparent, searching for solutions together, focusing on the benefits of others, approaching supposed opponents openly. Every day we encounter situations in which we can practice this. It is perfectly normal if it is difficult at first. But this is the only way.

Fliegerin: "I don't care what becomes of me. But there will always be someone

who doesn't give up hope, who dreams and preserves the memory."

From "The Neverending Story" by Wolfgang Petersen (*1941) based on Michael Ende (1929–1995)

I carry no treasures within me, I only have the power

to transform much of what I touch into something of value.

I have no depth except my incessant drive for depth.

Christian Morgenstern (1871–1914), German writer and dramaturge

Neujahrswünsche 2023.pdf

Download PDF • 1.03MB