Thoughts on November 9: In the 33rd year after the "turning point" of the fall of the Berlin Wall
- Bernd Liske
- 2 days ago
- 20 min read
The East German province, the realignment of Germany, the speech by the Federal President, and my new book on the failure of the judiciary
When I wrote in 2018 that the proportion of West Germans in administration, the judiciary, and trade unions was between 80 and 95 percent, that 80 percent of all universities were headed by West Germans, and that 94 percent of all presiding judges came from the West—the situation was similar among bankers, state secretaries, in the tax offices, and in the Office for the Protection of the Constitution— East Germans were not adequately represented in leadership positions in society, and the proportion of women in leadership positions would be greater than that of East Germans: Has anything fundamentally changed since then? Certainly not – and that's how it should stay.
While the collaborators of German unity make themselves comfortable with some of the two and a half million West Germans who have moved to the East since 1990, the population will once again be kept in hope with warm words that the blossoming landscapes will still materialize. However, East Germany's share of gross national product has been stagnating at 11% for decades – with a population share of 16% – and wages range from 67% to 90%, depending on the federal state in the east or west. Some things that once flourished are beginning to wither, and for those that are flourishing, there is no need to think about ownership.
While Federal President Joachim Gauck believes that people should be willing to freeze and accept a few years of less happiness and joy in life for the sake of freedom, and Robert Habeck says we should take shorter showers and that when we work, we don't need to heat our homes, food banks in both the east and west can no longer cope with the rush, millions of schoolchildren go to school without breakfast – a teacher from Hesse told me that a pupil would share a plate of spaghetti with her classmates on birthdays – and the president of the German Savings Banks and Giro Association notes that that the middle class is experiencing a loss of prosperity and a decline in wealth. All of this is hitting eastern Germany much harder, and it is clear that this was not the case before November 9.
A society that is emptying itself of values
covers itself with a cloak of superficial values –
until its true nature, with all its accompanying horrors, breaks through.
If you remove the cultivated veneer, what I have summarized several times before comes to light:
Eastern Germany was annexed by the West, its existing competitive strength was crushed, it was fed with West German ideas, and it was built up as a market and then as a low-wage country. Painting this picture deliberately neglects many fine brushstrokes—which would certainly be conducive to a romanticized view of the situation— because the rough outline makes it possible to ignore many things that would only interfere with the effort to get to the core analytically.
This starting point reveals that although East Germans were able to travel to the West and elsewhere after the fall of the Berlin Wall, they lost their homeland in the process. Not only in terms of ideology, but also materially. While East Germans conquered the world, West Germans came to the East and conquered it—including all relevant leadership structures. Instead of glass beads, the East Germans gained freedom – and the West Germans may not have gained a continent, but they did gain a considerable amount of territory to the east.
When identities are erased and replaced by phrases that cannot be tied to reality, when freedom unfolds primarily in dependence on economic, intellectual, and social capital, then freedom only enforces the right of the stronger, to which more and more people fall victim. The result is, in particular, increasingly unbearable transformational follow-up costs.
The planned Future Center for German Unity fits into this reality. It is not only suitable for the targeted burning of subsidies and the allocation of posts, but is also intended to make a name for itself as a center for historical distortion, reappraising the GDR from West German perspectives of anti-communism—as an interview with historian Ilko-Sascha Kowalczuk in WELT on October 31 shows. He was a member of the commission "30 Years of Peaceful Revolution and German Unity," whose work gave rise to the idea of such a center. Instead of strengthening cognitive diversity in Germany, the prevailing small-mindedness reinforces monocultural cultivation—eradicating, like glyphosate, any intellectual weeds that cause headaches for the rigid understanding of democracy. At the expected award ceremonies and anniversary events, people will revel in the fruits of stupidity: until history catches up with them.
When Chancellor Olaf Scholz speaks of a "turning point," there is no doubt that he is right: Germany has been experiencing a turning point since February 24. From one day to the next, a media war against Russia unfolded, dominated by sanctions, for which Germany was far better prepared than it was for coping with the pandemic. My thesis that Chancellor Olaf Scholz could have prevented the war on February 15 is probably only tenable from an extremely idealistic point of view. For months, the West drove Russia into a corner from which, for its own self-preservation, it felt it could only free itself (tweets from January 25 and before) as it then did: through a crime.
But we come to the wrong conclusions if we do not generally condemn wars as crimes and do not become aware of the nature of this war. Then we fail to recognize that all the aid to Ukraine serves no other purpose than to fuel this war, and we overlook the fact that there is a lack of any effort to defuse it through negotiations. Then we fail to recognize that a primary goal of this war is to weaken Europe, and not least Germany.
Politicians are just as keen to ignore this as they are the manifold consequences for Germany. This also applies to the fact that, according to the standards we apply to our past and with which we judge our right-wing present, Ukraine is a fascist country whose nature is revealed not least by the fact that it cultivates not only symbolism but also enemy stereotypes: What Jews were to Germany, Russians are to Ukraine (1, 2). Since February 24 at the latest, we have seen that there is fertile ground for the latter in Germany as well, fertilized by massive political and media efforts.
Every era has its own challenges.
One must recognize them and face them.
The "turning point" is systemic, just like the one that unfolded from 1933 onwards, and I was surprised to find that it begins in 2033, after the turning point of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Anyone who does not follow the line that everything must be done to break Russia and to support Ukraine as much as possible – not least with increasingly powerful weapons – is shouted down, forced to swear allegiance to this political development, or sidelined. A striking example of this is German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier – which is all the more significant given that he himself contributed to this development, but now Germany's version of democratic expansion is being overtaken by the Atlantic one – instead of "change through rapprochement," the concept of "overstretching Russia" is being pursued.
First, he has to listen to Ambassador Andrij Melnyk accuse him of "seeming to share the idea that Ukrainians are not really a subject. ... Steinmeier has been weaving a web of contacts with Russia for decades. ... Sensitivity is a foreign word to Steinmeier, at least when it comes to Ukraine." Then he is disinvited by Kiev – even though he is already in Warsaw on his way to Kiev – only to finally travel to Kiev remorsefully and give carte blanche for any support. The ambassador can also comment without any problems on the efforts of Saxony's Minister President Michael Kretschmer to achieve a balanced policy toward Russia: "Finally, Putin fan & Russia worshipper @MPKretschmer gets a slap in the face from his own ranks at @cdusachsen."
While the small-minded fought the free spirit
at his gates,
the flood rose outside his gates.
We Germans—accustomed to kicking down and kowtowing up, as symbolized by our begging for liquid gas in the Middle East and Germany's proclaimed claim to leadership—allow this to be done to us. At the same time, voices such as those of Eugen Drevermann with his "Speech Against War" and Gabriele Krone-Schmalz are not allowed to spread . Discredited as conspiracy theorists or Putin sympathizers, their analysis and advice are ignored.
As lateral thinking emerges from reflection and breaks through its boundaries,
forward thinking feeds off lateral thinking and leads it to new shores.
I believe that I can and must classify myself among this group, both in terms of content and in terms of how I am treated. Lateral thinkers—lateral thinking as a method of thinking according to Edward de Bono—are so stressful for the increasingly dull-minded small-minded people in the land of poets and thinkers that even the term itself is deliberately burned and driven into the custody of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution—as I already explained in my letter to the editor on the resignation of Federal President Horst Köhler. Incidentally, I can also see how dangerous the term is obviously considered to be – or how I am considered to be – from the fact that my most important aphorism on lateral thinking does not appear when searching for @LiskeAphorismen #Tagesspruch #Querdenken on TWITTER.
Such a "turning point" may have suddenly befallen us like a natural disaster: but if you take a closer look, you realize that it is one of the possible consequences of a natural development that has been taking place for years. Just as climate change in our natural environment is causing icebergs to melt, flash floods to suddenly descend on the Ahr Valley, and the weather in general to become increasingly erratic, it is the social climate change that has been taking place over the years that is hindering the implementation of innovations and generally causing innovative power to dwindle, preventing sovereignty through cowardice and making the experiences of this year possible in the first place, which destroys vast sums of money through fraud, which stupefies people through conformist media and drives militarization, which brings unrest back to the streets. Examples of this include my reading machine MIRAKEL, the NSA affair, the diesel affair, the Russophobic agitation, the uninhibited arms deliveries to Ukraine, and the resurgence of the Monday demonstrations.
A society programmed for self-interest, in which freedom and democracy are not lived values but only cloaks under which the law of the strongest is to prevail as in primeval times—I call it the paradigm paradox of democracy— reaches its limits when the struggle for the golden calf eats away at morality, when the strengthening of cunning forces the weakening of wisdom, when resources become scarcer and achievements dwindle. A country that only pays attention to values on commemorative days and otherwise increasingly fails to live by them erodes the foundation of its existence and is suddenly confronted with the fact that the appearance of its being encounters a being that it can no longer cope with through its appearance.
But while we have identified the 2° target as a possible contribution to countering one type of climate change, there is a lack of awareness of the threat it poses to our society, let alone the imagination to strengthen resilience against it and the intrinsic value that determines its social effectiveness — apart from efforts that the zeitgeist ignores because it protects itself from the weather at best and is willing to burn a billion euros for it — into an area that is primarily fueled by the consequences of climate change.
Instead of strong people making weak people strong,
weak people make strong people weak.
What I see in dealing with Russia is my personal experience since I can remember, and for me it is systemically analogous: they try to break me too, I too am shouted down. There are countless facets in which I see this reflected in my private and professional life, as well as in my social engagement, which was probably most evident in the NSA affair – in my youth, in the GDR itself, and not least in the country that today commemorates a day whose opportunities it failed to seize because, although a border was torn down, but this momentum was not used to tear down the boundaries in the realm of ideas and to harness the resulting flood of cognitive diversity, to allow new #modernThinking to grow on fertile ground in order to reap its many fruits and shape Germany's future in a sustainable way.
They hear, they see, they read. They remain silent. They talk.
They ignore. They ridicule. They isolate. They fight.
I encounter people who withdraw from bad experiences and respond to any openness—which, while not ruling out hurt, also enables development and community—with rejection, aggression, and, not least, silence. I meet people who lack the ability to understand increasingly complex issues and to recognize and analyze the challenges of our time and to meet them creatively and self-determinedly. I meet people who are consumed by self-interest and who also embody the aforementioned traits: their word is worthless—even if you remind them of it time and again—they destroy whatever they encounter that is untainted, they betray you cowardly, and again it is aggression and silence from which much must be inferred, because speaking openly would betray their nature and intentions, or because concrete and, on closer inspection, meaningless motives prevent them from clarifying what needs to be clarified and then concentrating together on shaping the future. I meet people who have no "respect" for those they encounter and for what they encounter – a topic I addressed in my New Year's wishes this year. I meet egoists, ignoramuses, cheerleaders, and agitators – when what is needed are idealists, analysts, visionaries, and conceptualizers.
Absichten werden in der Demokratie auf leisen Sohlen verfolgt.
"Turning points," such as those we have experienced and are now encountering again, require a nuanced approach if they are to succeed. Where there are collaborators, there are also victims, and it is not only the manifold forms of discrediting, exclusion, and oppression that democracy uses to subtly restrict the activities of those it believes are hindering it in the implementation of its self-serving intentions. In my experience, it is banks and tax offices in particular that contribute to this as fifth columns and, in their work in a self-devaluing society, can be sure of a judiciary that is increasingly abandoning its commitment to the Basic Law, the law, and jurisprudence, and qualifies judges who are needed in this "turning point" to maintain the order required to meet the demands of the times. Such a time requires that the norms that still appear to apply in the "old order" be further softened until a new order has finally emerged that will ensure the stability of the "turning point."
Does the judge no longer know the law
or is the law simply no longer right?
Is the judge now only his executioner and the law only a facade
for the petty-minded pursuit of power?
Where is the source for a different
for a citizen's right to justice?
May the free spirit rise up.
For the citizen's right to his right.
When free thought unites,
for the lovely splendor of values.
Then the right of the law to its effect
an essential element for the future of society.
The first volume of my series "Arbitrariness: Insights into German (Un)jurisprudence" describes how the norms of our law are being watered down. It is not devoted to my experiences on the side of action, but rather to the side that influences the boundary conditions that limit my external actions. The starting point is a lawsuit I filed in 2010 against the Magdeburg tax office for fraud, coercion, and violation of public morality. This lawsuit not only made me a great fan of our legal system, who strives to enforce it to the best of his ability, but also gave me deep insights into the actions of judges at the Saxony-Anhalt Finance Court, the Federal Finance Court, the Federal Constitutional Court, and the Magdeburg Administrative Court. A special feature of the book is that it consists primarily of my own written submissions, but also of the judgments and decisions of the courts.
Case law that does not follow common sense
is of as little use to the German people as a Bible written in Latin.
How can tax offices, courts, and public prosecutors act in such a way that one can endlessly confront them with the Basic Law, the law, and the case law of the Federal Republic of Germany, but they are not interested in any of it? Apart from the long-standing assumption that there is a shortage of lawful judges and that I am facing special courts because I have attracted attention for reasons that need to be clarified, I can only find one systemic explanation that I lack the arguments to dismiss as impossible: These structures under West German leadership see themselves as occupiers in East Germany, who are only fair to their own kind and fight every subject in the annexed province with subtle, subliminal means who derive their actions in this country from original thinking. The fact that the ruling small-mindedness is a compliant servant in this regard should only be mentioned in passing here.
I am now convinced that the judiciary is incapable of self-purification, which would enable it to fulfill its responsibilities in a virtuous manner. I therefore believe that an external institution similar to the TÜV is needed to ensure the quality of judicial work. Nowadays, companies are not left to audit themselves, and there is no reason to believe that the judiciary is a group of people who are morally and ethically superior to the rest of society. But if they can be just as morally and ethically reprehensible as society, then it is unacceptable to give them special status, and they must submit to the free democratic basic order in exactly the same way as the rest of society.
I began to address another case in my first blog post, but the fact that the protagonists of the "turning point" are already striving to further "modernize" the eroding foundations of our free democratic basic order in order to do justice to the new order is evident in the revision of Section 130 of the German Criminal Code, which was recast and incorporated into our law without much fanfare. Arbitrariness is becoming part of our legal system ( ), because—as far as I understand the intention—the question of whether genocide has been denied is not determined by whether a court has already definitively established a crime under international law, but rather by whether a politically led public prosecutor's office brings a case of denial to court, where it is then decided "according to the court's conviction."
Equipped with almost everything necessary to write history,
they set out to become history.
It was in their nature.
Why am I stating all this so clearly? In 1933, Germany set out once again to shape a "turning point in history," and at its beginning stand the ideologies of hatred and militarization. The enemy image of Judaism is being replaced by that of the evil Russian – although it is hard to believe that such a thing could still be effective given the assumed state of civilizational development, but the political and media simplification of complex issues into an enemy image, the one-sided and often mendacious reporting, and the demagogic abuse of terms such as peace, human rights, and democracy meet with a simplicity developed through tittytainment and insufficient engagement with social issues, which lacks the ability to make self-determined judgments about what it is confronted with.
The heating up of social sentiment and the unfolding dumbing down 4.0 at the height of civilizational development could once again lead to war. To put it this way is to concede, according to the classic interpretation, that this is not yet the case. However, according to my analysis of the nature of this war, this has long been the case, and it is not a war by Russia in and against Ukraine, but a war by the West against Russia, in which Germany's political elite is being pushed into a leadership role, thereby curtailing Germany's strategic advantage of having a virtually inexhaustible, inexpensive reservoir of raw materials and a huge market with great potential for development on its doorstep. Those who cannot imagine such a market should look at a country like the US, which is driving its industrialization forward from the East Coast.
Such a development appeared on the horizon when Russian President Vladimir Putin gave his speech in the German Bundestag in 2001: a development that would have made Europe the third most powerful force in the world. This development was successfully torpedoed, and the situation now looks as follows:
Russia's war in Ukraine is a crime, but we will come to the wrong conclusions if we do not analyze the development of the war comprehensively. In addition to many tweets, I have now published five articles on this subject.
We are witnessing a geopolitical chess game played by the US, in which the black king's victory means world domination. While all observers assume that the black queen (China) will be attacked, white is asymmetrically focusing on weakening a black bishop (Russia) by breaking through its already weak defense with a pawn (Ukraine). By weakening this bishop, White also wants to weaken the two knights: Germany and Europe.
We are witnessing a modern asymmetrical war between the US and Russia – involving Ukrainian blood. While Russia is primarily attacking with its army, air force, and navy, the US is fighting with the three modern branches of the armed forces: cyber, sanctions, and media. In this respect, negotiations between the US and Russia are necessary – anything else makes no lasting sense.
Germany is a party to the war: those who supply weapons bear joint responsibility (at this point, I am not concerned with what is derived from international law – from which the German Bundestag's research service then derives the training of Ukrainian soldiers as an entry into the war – but rather with the consistency of the analysis).
This war has a significant impact on the European order. Europe's dream of a multipolar world order is over. In a bipolar world, the US has contained Europe and is dealing with Russia so that it can then turn its attention to China. Europe's thinking has become a thing of the past – or is too weak to be noticed.
This war has a significant impact on Germany: I see poverty, permanently higher energy costs, reduced competitiveness, recession, inflation, national debt, a more aggressive foreign policy, burdens on climate protection, and the threat of war on German soil.
The kowtowing to the US and Ukraine stems from a social constitution that lacks respect for many things.
There are no substantial efforts to develop and pursue ideas for peace. Various efforts in this direction remain isolated.
The assumption that one is being far-sighted in order to
should not prevent us from sharpening our short-sightedness
in order to also benefit from closer observation.
Frank-Walter Steinmeier's keynote speech on October 28 fits into this context, following in the footsteps of Johannes Gauck, who advocates the militarization of Germany and prepares the population for years of hardship. In contrast to Eugen Drevermann's speech quoted above, the Federal President's speech is a speech in favor of war, and while he assures the German population of harder years ahead, Chinese President Xi Jinping proclaimed at the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China on October 16 that the goal of politics is to enable the population to live a better and happier life. Is this what the victory of democracy over dictatorships looks like?
The speech by the German president clarifies the goal of political action as well as the awareness of the political leadership in Germany about the scope of the consequences that will result from it. It is clear that the challenges of this winter are not the end of the story and that we are facing a decade in which democracy in our country will be under stress. But what is it all for? In five years' time, the aim is to have defeated Russia so that we "need not fear new wars in Europe": "The essentials will become important again, and they deserve all our energy."
Must the experience of death for the first, hardship for the second, and bread for the third
follow, the sons again hardship, the grandchildren death?
Because the spirit of the times, being small-minded, refuses to accept any moral change?
Even if one disregards all that the West has forced Russia to do, the question arises: Why must Germany engage in sanctions—which primarily affect its own country— ever-increasing arms deliveries, financial support for Ukraine, and coping with the wave of refugees in such a way that it jeopardizes economic stability through permanently higher energy costs and new dependencies, endangers internal and external security, inevitably drives relevant sections of the population into poverty, causes debt to explode, and deprives the economy of relevant markets? Added to this is the intention to continue with a "values-based foreign policy" toward China – out of concern that the commitment to Russia might not be enough to break Germany.
There is only one answer, and I see no benefit in it for the Federal Republic of Germany and its population – not even for the Western alliance: the vassal-like followership of the German elite behind the geopolitical interests of the US requires it. Above all, this followership knows no alternative course of action. One searches in vain for the word "negotiate" in the Federal President's speech. It is a speech for war, and that requires only one alternative: militarization.
One might have assumed that a speech of such importance would be broadcast on all channels at 8:15 p.m. and that the link to the full text would be widely distributed so that the population could read it at their leisure and become aware of what was in store for them. However, it was delivered during prime time on Friday afternoon, and the articles referring to it mostly limited themselves to general assessments. I couldn't find any articles that linked to the speech, so the vast majority of the population probably didn't notice it, or at least didn't read it in its entirety.
With regard to the failure and intentions of the political leadership, I do not see any substantially significant resilience. Not least, Germany lacks political structures for alternative political thinking that are equal to the challenges facing society. The left, which in my view has been infiltrated—as can be seen not least from the fact that it does not address the nature of this war in any way—is bidding farewell to political significance with slogans that are no longer noticed in a society characterized by overstimulation, and its self-obsessed personnel are neither able to recognize the systemic challenges of our time, let alone to offer sustainable solutions for them—nor to take advantage of the fact that the relevant political parties, which are focused on their own interests, individual interests, and the interests of others, lack real representation of two groups, which could be their market: Germany as a nation and its population.
The AfD is compromised by its inherent right-wing ideology, tending to act as a burden rather than a contributor to our free democratic basic order, making it easy to discredit the flashes of truth and sense that flare up within it. Its significance is adequately characterized by Sarah Wagenknecht's statement that the Greens are the most dangerous party in the Bundestag – with regard to which the wave of political and media outrage deliberately ignores an essential addition: measured in terms of the damage caused.
We are a people who only have a future together.
It is my hope that readers will recognize in these lines my "respect" for November 9, our country, and them, the readers—as a prerequisite for reflection and change. I believe that my view of humanity and the ideas of Albert Schweitzer and Pope Francis provide a good foundation for the perspectives I have used. It is my hope that my words will inspire readers to find the courage to delve deeper into the realm of thought, so that they can act more independently and successfully in the real world and develop further as human beings: for their own benefit and that of Germany. Technological progress must finally be followed by social progress, which must be driven both bottom-up and top-down, and for which situations such as the NSA affair, the pandemic, and the "turning point" can be seen as opportunities to raise awareness of the necessity of this and to develop the strength to achieve it. Germany needs climate change not only to be able to cope with climate change: otherwise, it will fall prey to the "turning point."
If most of the work is immaterial mental work – i.e., it takes place in the realm of thought – and as a result, a lack of knowledge and negative (evil) behaviors limit its impact, then the scarcities of the sixth Kondratieff are virtues that are insufficiently anchored in society at large. They must develop sufficiently helpful in society. Just as a steam engine, a car, or even a computer consists of several parts, the basic innovation of the sixth Kondratieff must be a concept consisting of a number of individual projects with which the virtues already existing in the conceptual space are brought into the real space and anchored in such a way that they enable every individual in society to develop and have an impact along these lines.
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 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, search for ideas and alternatives, develop visions, question things, recognize connections, and engage with one's own thoughts and actions. With all the consequences for psychosocial health, climate protection, the easing of 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. However, it is not enough to give in to the illusion that this has already been achieved. Like those who originally brought us to our current level of development, today's generations must learn to engage with these issues. Debate is a prerequisite for evolution. Just as it was possible for early humans to gain a better overview of their surroundings by walking upright and freeing their hands for other tasks, today we need to walk upright in the realm of ideas in order to think and communicate in a more comprehensive way.
...
It is the confrontation along the lines of "Be noble, helpful, and good" that becomes the decisive momentum for developments toward humanity. Every opportunity is an opportunity to promote this development. If walking upright was a prerequisite for humans to gain new experiences by getting their hands used to new activities, the question today is to what extent new thinking unfolds in the realm of ideas and new action unfolds in the real world, how upright or, succumbing to one's own or others' restrictions, bent over, life is lived.
The most important innovations are those that change the way we think.
Prof. Dr. Hans-Jürgen Quadbeck-Seeger (*1939), chemist, aphorist
