What a spectacle (Part 3)
- Bernd Liske
- 1 day ago
- 12 min read
The crux of the matter
In the last part of this three-part series, the interpretation will now be taken to the point where it risks being dismissed as a conspiracy theory, but the conclusions drawn are merely the result of the previous analysis. In addition, the reader will be given some suggestions that will enable them to classify their own position in the conflict and encourage them to take action themselves. The first and second parts can be found here and here.
On the nature of the spectacle: Two conspiracy theories
You don't have to have been everywhere
to have an idea of what you will find there.
Let's summarize:
The most important issues for the election on February 23 are war and security, as well as the economy and social justice. Refugees and asylum come in third place. The issue is prioritized because there are no answers to the important issues that are sustainably useful and substantially materially supported for Germany, its population, and its economy: Everything is geared toward war and "war readiness" – for which extremely extensive resources are available.
In the little time remaining before the election on February 23, the German Bundestag is dealing with an issue that, even after the attacks in Magdeburg and Aschaffenburg, is not considered a priority by voters. There is no meaningful debate on the issues considered most important.
The underlying thesis that Russia is responsible for the migration crisis is in no way tenable: the main responsibility lies with the US, which is significantly supported in its hegemonic policy by Germany – to its own detriment.
The migration problem must be tackled in a substantial way, but the measures envisaged are not comprehensive enough and, on the contrary, the overall approach is likely to exacerbate the problem.
Recognizing this leads to the question of why such a spectacle is being staged before the eyes of the voters. It cannot be ignorance of the voters' will – trend research is a billion-dollar market in Germany, and if you want something, you should be able to get it if you can pay for it – and one can assume that the parties have a sufficient degree of analytical intelligence to identify the problems that are crucial for Germany and its population. There can only be one answer to this question: the drama serves as a distraction, and the parties are not above misusing the stage of the German Bundestag as a theater for their drama.
Having reached this point, one cannot help but consider another question. Such theater requires a starting point from which the relevance of the debate becomes clear to the population. Although everyone is aware of the burden of the migration crisis, voters have more pressing issues. In order to achieve a change in perception, strong stimuli are needed that alter public awareness or at least justify political action and on which media effects can be built. This brings us to the attacks in Magdeburg and Aschaffenburg.
According to the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, the following attacks have taken place since 2017. In July 2017, there was a knife attack (1 dead, 6 injured). Then, in April 2020, there was a series of attacks on people of Turkish origin (6 injured) and in October a knife attack in Dresden (1 dead, 1 injured). In November 2021, there was a knife attack in Regensburg (3 injured). This was followed by another knife attack in April 2023 (1 dead, 4 injured). Last year, there was a knife attack in Mannheim on May 31 (1 dead, 6 injured), a knife attack in Solingen on August 23 (3 dead, 8 injured), and another in Magdeburg on December 20 (6 dead, 299 injured). In January, there was another attack in Aschaffenburg (2 dead, 3 injured). While there were five attacks in the six years between 2017 and 2023 with 3 dead and 21 injured, since May 31 last year there have been four attacks in less than eight months with 12 dead and 316 injured. (NOTE, conspiracy theory number one: I am fairly certain that I used the above page from the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution for my article "These are not coincidences" from January 24, also with regard to the figures for Magdeburg. Currently, I could not find them in the table (anymore). The copyright of the page is at least "2025 Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution").
It is part of a comprehensive (1, 2) and objective assessment of the situation to rule nothing out. It is therefore necessary to introduce a thesis: these attacks were not coincidental and served the purpose of influencing public opinion with the aim of distracting attention from issues that are of crucial importance for Germany, namely war or peace, economic and social decline or economic resurrection and social equality. In view of the attacks in Mannheim and Solingen, it should be noted that originally, an end to the traffic light coalition seemed possible much earlier (1, 2, 3, 4). The attacks made it possible to draw media attention to the issue, enabling the drama described above and the various reactions to it.
With regard to the attack in Magdeburg—I used to live in Magdeburg—I pointed out two aspects early on that I considered noteworthy in the course of the crime, but which have not played a role in the debate so far (1):
After his rampage, the perpetrator drove back in the direction he had come from, even though he must have known that he would be slowed down by traffic lights and that his wrecked car would attract attention. He did not drive towards Werder, where he could have fled in various directions. So he did not really escape.
(My posts on this on X can no longer be found – I searched for half an hour). The perpetrator could not only drive onto the Christmas market: he could also drive off – and could have done the opposite. So there was not only a security gap at the entrance he used.
Distraction
Never in its development has humanity
in the era it has produced been as stupid as it is today.
Even without the theory of deliberately creating drama, the facts show that prioritizing the migration issue serves as a distraction. As a result, there is only limited discussion among the population and in the media about the possible consequences of rearmament, the enormous costs of supporting Ukraine, and the more than 1.2 million Ukrainians in Germany. None of this is being widely questioned. Nor are the economic and social consequences of the "turning point" policy being discussed in any serious depth. The nation's potential for outrage is being skillfully directed toward the issue of migration and the AfD.
The fact that there are demonstrations and riots against the intentions of the CDU/CSU (1, 2, 3) is accepted. Democracy, as it is constituted, can cope with this: Gabor Steingart once said, "Capitalism has a big stomach." Similar to what we saw last year, there are structures in place to mobilize support for this. However, there is no sign of a peace movement that mobilizes against rearmament, against TAURUS, against the stationing of medium-range weapons on German soil in 2026, or even against Russophobia—and thus gets to the heart of why there is protest in the first place— . The same applies to the bundling of social issues: unemployment, pensioner poverty, rents and housing shortages, .... Why this is so: there is virtually no one to finance it – in contrast to other issues (1, 2). Germany in 2025: In the fourth year after the 33rd year of the "turning point" of the fall of the Berlin Wall – on the way to the 39th year, which this time will probably come much faster.
Strategically, it doesn't matter what percentage of the vote the old parties get in the federal election: what's important is a sufficient majority to be able to form a government in whatever combination is necessary to achieve their goals. The most important goal of the "turning point" is to rearm Germany so that it is "fit for war" against Russia. From this perspective, the voters' voices in the federal elections are not the decisive criterion if the population is distracted by the migration issue. What is crucial is that there is no broad debate on the really important issues – which could then certainly be reflected at the ballot box if there were forces that could be expected to deliver substantial results in addressing these issues. In this respect, it is surprising that the BSW is allowing itself to be so preoccupied with the migration debate and is thus prioritizing it. Ultimately, it is about voters casting their ballots at the ballot box – and leaving it at that.
Albrecht Müller's questions
In a democracy, intentions are pursued quietly.
The entire analysis in this paper can also be interpreted as an effort to find answers to questions recently raised by Albrecht Müller. Albrecht Müller is the editor of NachDenkSeiten. He was head of planning in the Federal Chancellery under Chancellors Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt and a member of the German Bundestag for the SPD from 1987 to 1994.
In an article entitled Schluss mit dem militärischen Tiefflug! Keine halben Sachen fordern! (Stop military low-altitude flights! Don't settle for half measures!) published on January 30, he expresses his irritation at the amateurish and tame response of the population to the noise pollution caused by low-altitude flights in the Western Palatinate and recalls the successful mobilization on the same issue in the 1980s. In Diether Dehm in conversation with Albrecht Müller, he also asks about the reasons for anti-Russian sentiment in Germany and whether it could be correct to assume that the BSW is being pushed below five percent in the polls in order to discourage voters from voting for the alliance because it would not make it into the Bundestag anyway.
Since appearance determines reality,
being follows appearance.
The German population is a victim, but also a witness—if one takes the trouble to examine the multitude of details more closely and treat everyone and everything with "respect."
The assumption of being far-sighted in order to
should not prevent us from sharpening our short-sightedness
in order to also benefit from closer observation.
creeping opinion-forming processes that are pushing Germany in a direction that substantially limits the potential of the world's third-largest economic power, robbing it of the potential that would allow it to continue into the future, weakening the country's resilience to the challenges of the times and harming the country, its citizens, and its economy in many ways. Weaknesses arising from the social constitution are exploited and reinforced by the methods used.
Structures such as trade unions, the peace movement, and the left are infiltrated and indoctrinated with ideas that erode their original power to address relevant issues. The same applies to influencing public opinion, and the debate in the German Bundestag that prompted these reflections is a small example of this. The uninhibited and increasingly unrestrained Russophobia, which is flowing in with tremendous creativity, successfully serves the goal of anchoring hatred of Russians in society in such a way that action against Russia is considered understandable and accepted as necessary. In Das Narrenschiff oder Die Diktatur der Parteien-Demokratie (The Ship of Fools or The Dictatorship of Party Democracy), sanctions and the media are discussed in this context as the fifth and sixth branches of modern warfare.
However, this was not about the destruction of water and energy supplies and other critical land, water, and air infrastructure: No, the carpet 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.
The primary driver for increasingly individualized effects is information superiority: something we could have become aware of through the NSA affair. It is also fed by banking and financial data—from which the effects of banks and tax offices can be derived—and, in the future, increasingly by movement profiles and health data. The more or less subtle effects on the BSW with Sahra Wagenknecht – but also on media such as the NachDenkSeiten – correspond to the way in which efforts are made to tackle weeds at an early stage so that they do not spread to an extent that requires greater intervention. What is already happening on an individual basis today will become increasingly individualized and automated across society as a whole as a result of further technological progress.
This effect on the social constitution is contrary to what I see as the necessity, linked to the humanization of the ape, for the individual to develop from a cared-for object into an individually acting, socially oriented, creative subject—to which everyone must make their individual contribution (should) – and the methods of influence used are contrary to my discussion of the need to go beyond technical innovations to social innovations that promote the creation of a prosperous human and civilizational future (Sixth Kondratieff).
If most of the work is immaterial mental work – i.e., 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 realm are brought into the real realm and anchored in such a way that they enable every individual in society to develop and have an impact along these lines.
The distraction is therefore much greater and is not limited to the election or the issue of migration.
Moral
What moral can be imparted to the reader? First of all, the election on February 23 is a referendum on Germany's path to war. Every voter knows that Friedrich Merz, Robert Habeck, and Christian Lindner want to deliver the TAURUS to Ukraine. Everyone knows that the CDU/CSU, the SPD, the Greens, and the FDP want to support Ukraine until the last Ukrainian has fallen—which consequently also means taking many billions from the federal budget generated by German citizens and the economy, which will not be available for issues that citizens and the economy consider to be priorities, and, in addition, committing further billions to reconstruction, for which the US is already holding Europe responsible. These parties and the AfD are on track to meet Donald Trump's goal of spending 5 percent of GDP on armament.
No voter can later claim that they did not know what the parties' intentions were. At best, they can claim that they were not aware of the consequences for their everyday lives: for jobs, pensions, education, health and care, housing, infrastructure, costs and, last but not least, security. War or peace influences the prioritization of all other issues.
The path to war may vary depending on the possible coalitions, but as things stand at present, it is undoubtedly linked to massive rearmament. War-related migration, the engagement in Ukraine, rearmament, and the war against Germany are already having an impact on issues of social justice, education, innovation, competitiveness, the housing market, and other areas. Money is readily made available for war, but when it comes to basic welfare issues—child benefits, housing, infrastructure development, energy costs—the coffers remain closed.
However, much more than the question of where voters place their cross on the ballot paper, it is important to develop an awareness that one should not relinquish one's attention to political and social issues at the ballot box, but should actively engage with the issues. Germany is already well on a path that could plunge the country back into misfortune, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to find a way back or to take a detour onto another path.
Therefore, to conclude—and not to digress too much—here are a few aphorisms to feed the gray cells beyond the immediate reading, which could help in processing what needs to be digested on a daily basis. You can also listen to the last words of songwriter Diether Dehm in conversation with Albrecht Müller.
We are a people who only have a future together.
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.
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
that gives the river its power.
Democracy needs not only
the voice of the people,
but also their eyes,
its ear, and its mind.
However, this view should not obscure how the current social constitution can be described in broad terms.
Germans do not like conventional dialogue.
They prefer monologues—they remain silent and think their own thoughts—
or they discuss what moves them with third parties.
This lack of debate
arises a weakness in critical thinking
and from that, a lack of teachability.
Such a people—trained in silence—prefers to talk about
than with each other, excludes rather than includes, is more 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.
