German chancellor criminally charged for expressing delight over bin Laden’s demise

(Note: Actually Merkel didn’t express “delight.” She said, “I am pleased that we managed to kill bin Laden.” Yet in hyper-liberal Germany, this was enough to trigger a criminal indictment against her, and even her own party is upset with her.)

I wasn’t planning to post anything more today, but this story so perfectly illustrates the spiritual death brought on a country by the consistent application of liberalism (backed in this case by a hyper liberalized form of Christianity), that I cannot refrain. In addition to the criminal charge against Angela Merkel which is the main subject of the article, we also learn that a poll shows that 64 percent of Germans do not see the death of Osama bin Laden as something to be celebrated. And by the way, why are we keeping 50,000 U.S. troops, at a cost of billions a year, in that dead land? For what purpose, other than feeding their economy, which happens to be the largest in Europe?

The story, “Judge Files Complaint against Merkel over Bin Laden Comments,” appearing in the English language version of Der Spiegel, begins as follows:

A Hamburg judge has filed a criminal complaint against Chancellor Angela Merkel for “endorsing a crime” after she stated she was “glad” that Osama bin Laden was killed by US forces. Meanwhile a new poll reveals that a majority of Germans do not see the terrorist’s death as a reason to celebrate.

Just think, if the anti-Hitler plotters in 1944 had succeeded in killing him, and if some German leader had expressed his joy, this German judge, if translated back to 1944, would seek to punish him. I guess Germany hasn’t changed so much after all, hmm? Pure liberalism, which the Germans in their humorless fanatical thoroughness aspire to as the opposite of Nazi totalitarianism, is another form of totalitarianism. And in the same way, as I have often remarked, the German-championed transnational opposite of the Nazi nationalism which sought to destroy the nations of Europe, is also destroying the nations of Europe. One way or another, whether in their Nazi form or in their hyper-liberal form, the Germans pose a determined threat to the nations and peoples of the West. To paraphrase Churchill’s famous remark about the Germans, they need to be kept at our feet, or else they will go for our throat.

I am not being extreme or “anti-German” when I say that. The Germans agree with me. They see themselves as a threat to others. That’s why they say that the EU is necessary, to keep them, the ever-threatening Germans, in check. The problem is that the German-led EU which in the German mind is aimed at suppressing the German nation, must suppress all other European nations as well. This is why, just as German nationalism could not be allowed to rule Europe, German anti-nationalism also cannot be allowed to rule Europe. Germany must not rule, period.

Here is the rest of the article:

Schadenfreude, the enjoyment of others’ suffering, may be a famously German concept, but it is apparently not a feeling that many Germans aspire to. The political and public fallout following Chancellor Angela Merkel’s statement on Monday that she was “glad” Osama bin Laden had been killed was among the most hotly debated topics in the German media this week.

Politicians, including those within her own center-right coalition, said that no death was cause for celebration, and reproved the remark as un-Christian and vengeful.

But Hamburg judge Heinz Uthmann went even further. He alleges that the chancellor’s statement was nothing short of illegal, and filed a criminal complaint against Merkel midweek, the daily Hamburger Morgenpost reported Friday.

“I am a law-abiding citizen and as a judge, sworn to justice and law,” the 54-year-old told the paper, adding that Merkel’s words were “tacky and undignified.”

In his two-page document, Uthmann, a judge for 21 years, cites section 140 of the German Criminal Code, which forbids the “rewarding and approving” of crimes. In this case, Merkel endorsed a “homicide,” Uthmann claimed. The violation is punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment or a fine.

“For the daughter of a Christian pastor, the comment is astonishing and at odds with the values of human dignity, charity and the rule of law,” Uthmann told the newspaper.

A Sober German Reaction

While the judge’s reaction may seem extreme, his sentiments are apparently shared by 64 percent of the German population. That was the proportion of Germans who said bin Laden’s death was “no reason to rejoice” in a poll published by broadcaster ARD on Friday.

Among respondents who said they identified with Germany’s three main opposition parties, an even greater proportion were disgusted with the jubilation over the al-Qaida leader’s death. Their views mirror recent comments made by opposition politicians on the issue.

But even among supporters of Merkel’s conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) and their junior coalition partners, the pro-business Free Democrats (FDP), barely half of those polled said they empathized with Merkel’s view.

The chancellor has declined to withdraw her statement, but the outcry prompted government press spokesman Steffen Seibert to defend her on Thursday. “The reason for her happiness was the thought that this man would no longer pose any danger,” he said, adding that her statement had been reported out of context.

Seibert added that Merkel “appreciates that those who heard only this sentence … might have found the combination of the words ‘death’ and ‘glad’ in one phrase to be inappropriate.”

- end of initial entry -

Daniel S., who sent the article, writes:

I was going to comment a bit on the story, but thought the situation so extreme and absurd as to warrant no remarks on my part. If this is all that remains of Germany, then the quicker it disappears as a nation the better. One is almost tempted to say that they deserve to be swallowed up by the very Muslims they grovel before and for which they use their court system as an agent. I have as much contempt for modern Germany as I have for modern Britain. Totalitarian liberalism is pure evil, plain and simple.

Mark A. writes:

Your comment that “Germany must not rule, period,” reminded me of an interview with former Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, discussing Germany’s 20th century student, Japan. Lee warned against Japan’s military having a broader role (other than self-defense) in post-World War II Asia, because giving them military power would be, in his opinion, akin to giving whiskey and car keys to a teenager. He said, “My Japanese friends agree with me on this.”

By the way, could it be that the Ashkenazim’s love affair with liberalism stems from their Germanic ancestry? Did the Rhine river sprout forth numerous tribes of peoples with an inability to deal with balance and reason and with a predilection for absolutism?

Note: I am not equating Jewish liberalism in modern America with German National Socialism!

LA replies:

It’s funny you should say this now about the Rhine River. I just came this minute from a conversation with a friend about Wagner’s Das Rheingold, in which we read up on the plot and were discussing what it means. My idea was, since the Rheingold, which gives its possessor power over the world, could only be possessed by someone who had renounced love, which is obviously a bad thing to do, the Rheingold is meant to remain in the river and not be possessed by anyone. So all the figures in The Ring of the Nibelung—Nibelungen, gods, humans—who are attempting to possess the gold are up to no good. In Wagner’s vision, there is no good power in the world; all power is dictatorial power. This is very similar to your statement, “Did the Rhine river sprout forth numerous tribes of peoples with an inability to deal with balance and reason and with a predilection for absolutism?”

May 7

An Indian living in the West writes:

I must disagree with your criticisms of Germany. The hyper-liberalism you see today is seen as a way, unfortunately, for Germany to atone for her past sins. Some Germans do these things to show how far they are from their own past which is connected with shame and guilt. However, as the generations that have vivid memories of Hitler and the Nazis pass into history, you will see Germany become a lot less guilt-conscious and more assertive of its existence as a nation.

I disagree that Germany created the EU in order to destroy the nations of Europe. To quote Sir Humphrey from Yes, Minister, Germany joined the European Community (which was the predecessor to the EU) to “cleanse its name of genocide and gain re-admission to the human race”. [Yes, precisely. And how does Germany accomplish this noble task? By creating a European super-national state in which all the nations of Europe cease to exist as nations. In order to accomplish Germany’s transcendent desire to cleanse itself of the sin of having sought to destroy the nations of Europe, the nations of Europe must be destroyed. Neat, huh?]

I completely disagree that Germany as a nation must be destroyed for the West to be saved. This is a ridiculous statement. [LA replies: Of course I did not say that Germany must be destroyed as a nation; I said that Germany must not be allowed to rule other nations. I didn’t just make that statement out of thin air. The logic of the statement proceeds from Germany’s demonstrated record of first seeking to destroy other European nations based on Nazi hyper-nationalism, and then, in reaction against that monstrous act, seeking to destroy other European nations based on guilt-ridden hyper-liberalism. And in both cases Germany pursues its goal with the same literal-minded, mechanical thoroughness. And all this matters because Germany is the most powerful country in the EU and the country most committed to completing the EU project. Which part of this record do you deny or say I have wrong?] There are forms of extreme suicidal and insane liberalism all over Europe that are worse than anything you will see in Germany. The Scandinavians, particularly the Swedes, are far worse. [LA replies: But Sweden is not a powerful country; its liberal madness affects mainly itself.] Germany, in fact, still has some remnants of an older order such as its laws on citizenship which none of the countries in Europe have.

I also think that it is ultimately Germany that could end up destroying the EU. As it happens, it is having to bear the burden of bailing out the finances of one European country after the next. There are clear signs that German voters are fed up with this. I am confident that at some point within the next decade, the Euro will disappear altogether and the EU will suffer a major setback as it becomes completely unwieldy and impossible to sustain because the Germans will refuse to bail it out. [LA replies: Yes, that has been predicted repeatedly over the last year or so, but it hasn’t happened yet.]

Lastly, you will note that the order was made by a judge in Hamburg. In Germany, you will see the same north/south divide that you see in Europe. The north tends to be hyper-liberal and the south tends to be conservative. In Germany, Bavaria is far more conservative than most American states on a variety of issues, whereas the northern provinces in Germany are hyper-liberal like Sweden or Norway. [LA replies: The last I looked, northern Germany was a part of Germany. If the south seceded from the north, leaving the north far weaker, this division between north and south would become helpful.]

Indian living in the West replies:

You wrote:

Yes, precisely. And how does Germany accomplish this noble task? By creating a European super-national state in which all the nations of Europe cease to exist as nations. In order to accomplish Germany’s transcendent desire to cleanse itself of the sin of having sought to destroy the nations of Europe, the nations of Europe must be destroyed. Neat, huh?

In Europe, it has become the order of the day for a number of countries to complain about German influence. But it is a two way process. Germany is an economic powerhouse and the smaller and less affluent countries in Europe want German money. The EU is a system of wealth redistribution across Europe in which rich Germany atones for her sins of the past by paying billions to other countries within the EU. The average German does not like it but the German ethos is obedience and not to rebel. (It was precisely for this reason that the Nazis were able to get away with so much. They were able to carry out the atrocities not because the German majority agreed with them but because they were obedient and did not revolt. Had they revolted, the war might have ended a lot sooner.)

The problem in Germany is not that the majority wants the things we bemoan. The problem is the German political establishment, which is ruled by hyper-liberal guilt ridden leftists across the political spectrum. Until the stranglehold of this elite and their allies in the educational establishment and the media is broken, Germany as a country will continue to pursue the policies that it pursues.

War guilt also allows the hyper-liberals to squelch all debate in Germany. [LA replies: Well, then, it sounds as though you are agreeing with my basic analysis, even if not with my conclusion. Germany is set on this hyper-liberal course, and, regardless of qualifying details (the north vs. south division, for example), will continue to be so.]

You wrote:

Of course I did not say that Germany must be destroyed as a nation; I said that Germany must not be allowed to rule other nations. I didn’t just make that statement out of thin air. The logic of the statement proceeds from Germany’s demonstrated record of first seeking to destroy other European nations based on Nazi hyper-nationalism, and then, in reaction against that monstrous act, seeking to destroy other European nations based on guilt-ridden hyper-liberalism. And in both cases Germany pursues its goal with the same literal-minded, mechanical thoroughness. And all this matters because Germany is the most powerful country in the EU and the country most committed to completing the EU project. Which part of this record do you deny or say I have wrong?

I should have written more precisely. That statement was actually made by Daniel S. who said that Germany should disappear as a nation.

The only reason Germany has so much influence is because Germany is rich. Germany does not rule over other European nations through military power. It has power and influence because other European countries are corrupt and want German money. The recent bail-out talk is another example of that. If Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy are bailed out, Germany will bear the brunt of those costs. What I am saying is that if we want Germany to have less influence, the Greeks, Spaniards, Irish, Italians and Portuguese should learn to do without German money and practice some virtue. [LA replies: Yes, good point. It raises the issue, if it is desirable that Germany have less power, how is this to be accomplished? You point out that the less productive countries must stop being dependent on Germany. That’s a start. But equally important, I would say, is that the EU itself must go. Then Germany, while remaining economically powerful, would be deprived of the ability to impose its guilt ridden hyper-liberalism on Europe, because the institution through which that agenda has operated would have ceased to exist.]

You wrote:

Yes, that has been predicted repeatedly over the last year or so, but it hasn’t happened yet.

This is going to take time. Unemployment in Spain is running at 20 percent currently while youth unemployment is running at 30 percent. This is a crisis that is steadily getting worse. These countries have incurred debts that cannot be repaid because the money has been spent. The Germans will be faced with two choices: debase the Euro to pay the debts or massively tax the already overtaxed German taxpayer. The average German with horrific memories of Weimar hyperinflation and post-WWII currency collapse will balk at this. The Germans have, up to now, silently and obediently gone along with their government. But the consensus is starting to crack up. There is a lot of hope yet.

You wrote:

The last I looked, northern Germany was a part of Germany. If the south seceded from the north, leaving the north far weaker, this division between north and south would become helpful.

One could say the same about America. If you got rid of the North East and West Coast, the Democrats would never win anything. [LA replies: I have to admit that there’s something to this. America, while not as hyper-liberal as Germany, is nevertheless a very liberal and very powerful country imposing its liberalism on the world. The division of America into a conservative and a liberal country (discussed here) would leave the liberal America less able to keep doing that. Yes, American power has often been a force for good. But lately its influence has been increasingly benighted and harmful. For example, the insane intervention in Libya, while pushed by France and Germany, could not have happened without the U.S. And what is the U.S. doing as the ally and nation-builder of the sharia government of Afghanistan? Liberal America seeks the global expansion and empowerment of Islam, just as he EU does. I could go on.]

ILW continues:

On a slightly more humorous note, it seems Scotland could secede from the United Kingdom. This would be an interesting development in a variety of ways, but first and foremost it would make the Labour party unelectable in the UK.

Mark A. writes:

ILW wrote:

“These countries have incurred debts that cannot be repaid because the money has been spent. The Germans will be faced with two choices: debase the Euro to pay the debts or massively tax the already overtaxed German taxpayer.”

He forgot about the third option, which is to allow the German banks to fail as a result of their stupid loans. Moreover, the debtor nations may abandon the Euro, which Greece is now considering.

If these nations begin to leave the Euro, much of the European Union will likely be finished. This is Germany’s big fear.

I do not accept the notion that Germany’s role in the EU is motivated primarily out of war guilt. Creating a Eurozone has allowed Germany to extract massive interest payments from southern Europe as a result of massive lending. (In the same sense that Alan Greenspan’s housing bubble allowed Wall Street to extract massive interest payments from Americans: If your house costs 4x, you now must take out a bigger mortgage, etc.) Moreover, the EU allows wealthy Germans to travel freely throughout and Europe and buy cheap (from a German perspective) property in southern and eastern Europe.

Germany is trying to dominate Europe, but it is doing so using finance and hyper-bureaucratic liberalism rather than military means. In order for Germany to be successful, it must destroy the sovereignty of the other European nations. It is ironic, but debt-riddled and incompetent Greece may offer Europe its best hope against Germany and the EU.

Henning G. writes:

As a German national, who also happens to be proud of his nation’s history, and at the same time greatly respects your writings, I have to take issue with this article. While I am the last man to defend the liberal elite in politics, media or the judiciary for that matter, I firmly believe that pride in one’s heritage is an inherently conservative trait. My fatherland’s and people’s history display much to be proud of. It was the German people, which in the form of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nations carried Western Christian civilization through the dark ages. It was the German nations upon which the wars of reformation were fought out to a large degree. It was my people which built many of the great nations and cities of Europe, from Prague through Vienna and Milan, and one can include Rome as well, which would hardly have survived as anything close to what it is today, without the German people. And yes, I am fully cognizant of the darker chapters in that history as well. Europe would quite simply not exist, without Germany, and our historical contributions. Yes, it is precisely the liberal elite which preaches this shame for our history, narrowing it down to a dark twelve year chapter. And yet, even during this chapter, we had great heroism on display, not the least of which by the Stauffenberg plotters of 1944, a group of proud, Christian, conservative nationalists, incidentally. Mine has historically been a nation of poets and warriors, of science and faith. To judge us on the statements of the notoriously anti-German Churchill, is nothing more than hyperbole. I agree that Germany should no more rule other nations, than the United States, France Great Britain or anybody else. To say Germany must not rule seems to indicate that other nations could and should rule.

Indeed, Germany JOINED the already existing European community. A community, which had surreptitiously always been designed to unify Europe as a federation. To destroy the nations of Europe and replace them with a united states of Europe. This is not an inherently German design, even if it was picked up eagerly by our elites, whose opinions of my fatherland were shaped by the Nazi tyranny and its crimes. Napoleon also sought to unify Europe through force of arms. And France was far more instrumental in the creation of the European community than Germany, which, it should be remembered, was nothing more than a destroyed and occupied nation still. Once we became the most economically powerful nation in Europe, we certainly contributed our share and more to the disintegration of the historical nations of Europe. But to give my people the main blame is a crass misreading of history, seemingly based on historical anti-German attitudes, reminiscent of wartime propaganda, when our soldiers were supposed to have bayonetted babies in the Lowlands during the beginning of the first world war.

The European Union is a construct that should and must end, for the sake of all European nations. Much blame can be assigned for its current form and its designs for the future. But it has been without exceptions, the elites of every nation within the union that bear the majority of the blame. And every nation’s elite had different reasons for what they did. From a desire for peace, to a fear of domination by the U.S., the USSR, or even Germany, but also simply the desire by the political elites to easily pass laws through the EU, which then have to be adopted by every nation within, without having to go through a lengthy political process domestically. Criticism of the EU and the current elites of Europe (including Germany) is entirely warranted. To single out my fatherland and its entire people in an apparent flash judgment, is uncalled for, and unworthy of your usual penetrating analysis. You say after all that the “Germans” agree with you. That they themselves see their nation as a threat to others. You are conflating our elites with the German people. Surely a mistake which you would not wish others to make of your own nation. [LA replies: Well, I make that “mistake” all the time, because it is axiomatic with me, following Eric Voegelin, that each society is led by an elite which represents that society, and which is taken by the world as representing that society. America for example is a liberal society. I don’t agree with that liberalism, but I also don’t pretend that America is not, in fact a liberal society. And the proof that it is a liberal society is that it is led by a liberal elite. If conservatives were able to put a different elite in power, they would do so, but they’re not able to do so, so conservatives don’t represent America. When I say that America is a liberal country because it is run by a liberal elite, am I conflating the liberal American elite with the (partially) conservative American people? No. I am saying that, based on who actually runs and represents America, America is a liberal country. And the same goes for Germany. And each country must take responsibility for what its elite, who represents it, does.]

I thank you for your time. And I hope that I was not too abrasive. However, it has been my experience that my people are one of the last groups in the world, which can be maligned with impunity, in media, entertainment and political analysis. My people are the equivalent of white Christian southerners in the U.S., or Afrikaners in South Africa. And I will not acquiesce, or by silence consent, to have my people and their history spoken ill of.

LA replies:

I don’t think your comment was abrasive at all. But I felt it was a bit victimological and was not really responsive to the problem I have described. The facts as I understand them are: (1) that Germany is the most powerful country in the EU; (2) that Germany has been the most aggressive and persistent EU member in seeking total European integration, i.e., the elimination of European nations in a superstate; and (3) that Germany by its own repeated statements (i.e., the statements of its elite, who represent Germany), pursues this end because it sees nations as dangerous to humanity, and the reason it sees nations as dangerous to humanity is what the German nation did under Hitler. Because Germany needs to be eliminated as a sovereign nation in a transnational superstate, all nations need to be eliminated in a transnational superstate. With such a belief system in place, Germany is peculiarly dangerous. Yes, the other nations of the EU share the same belief system. But the consistent impression I get from press stories over the years is that it is Germany above the others who keeps pressing forward with the EU project. And what drives Germany is its (its elites, who represent it) hyper-liberal guilt over Nazism.

This is not to say that the German people are worse than other people. That is not my view. I am speaking of Germany as a political society.

ILW writes:

That was a very eloquent defence of Germany by Henning G. Tremendous. I am amazed that there are still such people in Germany.

I must, however, disagree with him on one thing: Churchill was not anti-German. In fact, the whole history of Churchill’s various acts in defence of Germany to rein in virulent anti-Germanism in Britain is completely forgotten. One such act was Churchill’s opposition to the naval blockade of Germany after WWI. Churchill thought that this was a grotesque act of arrogance and cruelty against a defeated nation. When no one listened to him, Churchill said that the victors would regret the day they did such a thing. He was right. 1 million Germans starved to death because of the British naval blockade. This combined with the misery caused by Versailles is what created Hitler. One could say that the spitefulness of Britain and France combined with the isolationist mistakes of America in the inter-war years is what allowed Hitler to come to power.

I can give other examples. During the last stages of WWII, Churchill was starting to disagree with Bomber Command on the bombing of German cities. Churchill believed that weakening Germany so much would empower and embolden Communist Russia even more after the war. He wanted to win the war but not destroy the country. After the war ended, Morgenthau and Stalin wanted Germany’s industries destroyed and the country turned into an agrarian society that could never threaten its neighbours. Churchill once again opposed it vehemently and argued for reconstruction and rebuilding of the country. Post-war Germany owed its prosperity in part to Churchill and his defence of the German nation in defeat against the schemes of Stalin and Morgenthau.

Also, after WWII, Stalin wanted 50,000 German military officers executed. Churchill once again stopped the Allies from doing this on the basis that this was not to seek justice by punishing the real perpetrators (Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler and Goering) but to seek vengeance by mass execution.

It is an unfortunate fact that many Germans today think of Churchill as a warmonger and German-hater. Nothing could be further from the truth.

ILW writes:

Mark A writes:

He forgot about the third option, which is to allow the German banks to fail as a result of their stupid loans. Moreover, the debtor nations may abandon the Euro, which Greece is now considering.

This is true although not quite as painless as one would initially think. Greece and a number of other countries have a massively bloated public sector which depends upon the state being able to raise cheap finance. If Greece defaulted, it would have to pay much much higher rates of interest on any new money that it borrows from the markets. That is the flip side of defaulting on sovereign debt. If the state cannot pay high interest rates, it would need to cut back. There would be riots far worse than anything we have seen so far.

The second point which is easily forgotten is that German banks were forced by EU regulations to lend money to these countries. They did not, as they have often been accused of doing, do so simply as a result of their own greed and stupidity. Those rules continue to remain on the books and so long as those rules remain, the risk of a bigger crisis a few years down the road cannot be ruled out.

Dan K. writes:

You wrote:

I am not being extreme or “anti-German” when I say that. The Germans agree with me. They see themselves as a threat to others. That’s why they say that the EU is necessary, to keep them, the ever-threatening Germans, in check. The problem is that the German-led EU which in the German mind is aimed at suppressing the German nation, must suppress all other European nations as well. This is why, just as German nationalism could not be allowed to rule Europe, German anti-nationalism also cannot be allowed to rule Europe. Germany must not rule, period.

Don’t let nearly a century of anti-German propaganda beginning in 1914 cloud your thinking about Germans as a people. I agree that their politicians are dreadful (as are those of the USA) but remember Germany is essentially still an occupied country. I will not try and refute what you have written which would take an effort that I have not the time to even begin to do except to say that General Patton after the end of WWII while he was taking part in the occupation of Germany and before his untimely death during which he came to know the Germans made the statement (I paraphrase): we fought the wrong people. (Churchill himself came to a similar view in his statement: we stuck the wrong pig. ) I admit I am German in decent on both sides but my ancestors have been Americans for over 100 years and fought against the Germans in Europe in two wars without a complaint that I am aware. In addition, I have had the opportunity to travel many times in Europe and Asia including some of the Middle East. Only two countries that I visited have the amenities, civility, modernness, cleanliness and middle class ambiance that I experience daily in the North West USA and that I remember from my growing up in Pennsylvania. Those two countries are Germany and to a lesser extent Japan—both of which countries are pariah nations, especially Germany. [LA replies: “Pariah nation”—that’s ridiculous. Like Henning G., you’re being victimological.] I spent time in England and Scotland as a student and have visited multiple times France, Holland, Denmark, Spain, Italy and Greece. All of those countries have things to love and enjoyed including culture and food. If I had the time and wealth, I would love to live for an extended stay in Italy and Greece and Southern Spain just for the food. But as much as I love those countries, only Germany, with its Germans, seems to me to have the qualities that make a country congruent to the America I grew up in and still live in today. (BTW, as you well know, that America that we both love is disappearing rapidly as the USA is being transformed by immigration and multiculturalism.) The Japanese struck me the same way as the Germans, unlike my exposure to the Chinese in Red China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan and the Filipinos in the Philippines. Let me end by saying that I have had wonderful experiences and friends in all of the Asian countries that I have mentioned and love Asian food. (As an amateur chef I have taken three semesters of Chinese cooking when I lived in California thanks to the largess of the California College system and have learned some Philippine, Indonesian and Thai techniques.) But, only Japan strikes me as being similar to Germany or the vanishing USA. The Germans make Germany; the Japanese make Japan; the Americans (old stock and the assimilated ) make America. In all three of those countries politicians make a mess despite the potential of their people.

I urge you to read one chapter in the book The Europeans by Luigi Barzini, Simon & Schuster (May 1983). The chapter is number III titled the Mutable Germans. This is a most wonderful book. You will find much to agree with in the chapter on the Germans as he pulls no punches but it will also explain what is built into Germans that makes them strive for excellence and usually attain superiority of result in all that they do.

LA replies:

This is all very fine, but it’s irrelevant to my point. I was not denigrating German abilities, German culture, or the German way of life. I was saying that Germany, as an organized society led by a hyper-liberal elite bent on dismantling every nation’s sovereignty, poses a threat to the West.

Also, I should say that of all the European peoples, the Germans I’ve met seem the most like Americans, which is similar to Dan’s point. But the discussion is not about the German people. It’s about Germany as a political society. And if the German people, whatever their good qualities, allow their country to be such and such a political society, then they are responsible for it, just as if the American people, whatever their good qualities, allow America to be such and such a political society, they are responsible for it.

James P. writes:

Mark A. has it about right. The purpose of the EU is to allow Germany to dominate Europe with finance and bureaucracy rather than military power. This would not be a bad thing if Germany were not ultra-liberal; imagine, if you will, a traditionalist, conservative Germany dominating Europe through non-military means, and ask yourself whether or not you, as an American conservative, would object to that. Personally, I would not object. If the EU were conservative rather than ultra-liberal, not only would I not object to it, I would strongly consider moving there. Of course, it should be no great surprise to us that Germany is hyper-liberal, as one purpose of the American occupation was to expunge every last vestige of indigenous conservatism under the rubric of “de-Nazification”, and this allowed liberalism (and only liberalism) to flourish.

LA replies:

Of course I would welcome a conservative Germany. For example, back in the early Nineties, with the civil wars going on in the former Yugoslavia, my feeling was that in a normal world, instead of some UN or other international body of “peacekeepers” getting involved and making things worse, the nearest major power, in this case Germany, would take a leading role and restore order. That’s what major powers do. When their less orderly neighbors get messed up, the major power steps in and restores order. Unfortunately such a normal, i.e., conservative, Germany (neither hyper-nationalist nor hyper-liberal) didn’t exist then and doesn’t exist now.

May 8

Konstantin writes:

This is a comment on your topic about the German chancellor being criminally charged for expressing delight over the killing of bin Laden.

As someone who has been living in Germany for quite a long period, I would like to give my perspective on this issue. When the killing of Osama bin Laden made the headlines, I noticed the media and the “intellectuals” questioning whether it was legitimate for a Rechtstaat (state that is founded on civil rights and liberties) to kill someone, no matter what atrocities the person in question had perpetrated. This shows the actual problem with most Germans: decades of ultra-liberalism, imposition of Nazi-guilt and indoctrination into self-hatred have twisted their mindset so starkly that they seem to be unable to differentiate between good and evil, and they let some artificial constructs of paragraphs, chartas [?] and elements of liberalized Christianity circumvent their intuitive sense of justice and self-defence. Not only that, but as you pointed out, they view what they believe in as something universal that should be imposed on everyone (though they will agree that diversity is good).

One example: Many argue that it is wrong to kill bin Laden and other terrorists because by doing that, we as a civilized society show everyone that we are no better than them; instead, we should have brought bin Laden to a court of justice to demonstrate to the (Arab) world the superiority of the principles of a Rechtstaat, thus sending them a positive signal.

Such a slant makes Germans apologetic and self-doubtful, and leaves their minds without any defense. They would rather let themselves be beaten and robbed instead of counterattacking (and therefore descending to the same level as the villain), showing that they are “better.”

Obviously, what I stated cannot be applied to all Germans, but the tendency is noticeable when the death penalty is discussed or when the United States get criticized for their harsh justice system (while even in their opinion the German justice system is a joke when it comes to dealing with violent criminals, for the violent criminals regularly get a free pass while the victims are left in suffering).

On an additional note. After the terrible catastrophe occurred in Japan, German people and media were less focusing on the tsunami and the victims it caused, but on the condition of the nuclear plants in Fukushima, highlighting a serious threat to the German people. Unfortunately, this event and the following discussion about whether Germany should exit from nuclear energy gave a big boost to the Green Party in Baden-Wuettemberg, which is notorious for its anti-German and pro-Islam stance. As I stated, not only is the differentiation between right and wrong lost, but the priorities are flipped upside down.

May 10

Dimitri K. writes:

You wrote:

“The last I looked, northern Germany was a part of Germany. If the south seceded from the north, leaving the north far weaker, this division between north and south would become helpful.”

May I suggest that you finally sort of approve the partition of Germany? Which may have been not such a bad thing, actually? Wasn’t Germany better before it was unified by Prussians?

By the way, I suggest some historical theory. The original name Prussians belongs to Baltic tribes (relatives of Lithuanians) which were germanized long ago. Is it possible that Germany was unified by, sort of, not exactly Germans? To which event many real Germans actually resisted. I know that Bavarians did. As strange as this theory may be, it can bring some explanation of the German’s mind. They feel themselves conquered, but don’t exactly know by who.

LA replies:

“Wasn’t Germany better before it was unified by Prussians?”

Let’s look at it this way. Germany, after being divided among many states and principalities for many centuries, was unified circa 1871. Within 43 years of unification, Germany started the Great War, which inflicted terrible wounds on Western civilization from which it has never recovered. Within 62 years of unification, Germany was taken over by the demonic Nazis. Within 68 years of unification, Germany had started the biggest war in history, in which the Nazis aimed at enslaving and destroying the peoples and nations of Europe, and in which tens of millions of people were killed.

And now let’s consider this. Germany, after being divided between the Communist East and the free West for 44 years, was reunited circa 1991. Within one year of German re-unification, the Maastricht Treaty was signed, which changed the European Common Market into the European Union with the aim of creating a single hyper-liberal bureaucratic superstate in which the nations of Europe would be dissolved, and, in addition, Europe would be progressively Islamized.

Now maybe this is all of lot of post hoc ergo propter hoc. But I don’t think so. So my answer to you is Yes, it is a reasonable position that Europe and the world are better off when Germany is not united.

I don’t see this as an anti-German statement. I have nothing against Germans. I like and admire Germans. I want Germans to be happy and not guilty any more about Nazism. Germany has much to contribute to the world. I see it as a realistic statement that the world is better off when Germany does not have too much power.

James P. writes:

You write,

Within one year of German re-unification, the Maastricht Treaty was signed, which changed the European Common Market into the European Union with the aim of creating a single hyper-liberal bureaucratic superstate in which the nations of Europe would be dissolved, and, in addition, Europe would be progressively Islamized.

Again, the problem is not that Germany is unified and has too much power, but that it is liberal. If Germany were conservative or traditionalist and were peacefully uniting Europe into an economic superpower, there could be no reasonable objection from American conservatives.

We should also note that German-led efforts to unify Europe into a single bureaucratic superstate with a single currency long preceded German unification. West Germany was a signatory of the 1957 Treaty of Rome, which is the political antecedent of the EU. The Single European Act of 1987 set the objective of establishing a single European market by 1992, and also established the basis for European political cooperation. (I remember in the late 1980s there was a lot of hoopla in Europe about “Europe 92” and what a great thing it would be.) Thus, even if Germany had not been reunified, progress towards a single hyper-liberal bureaucratic superstate was well under way in the 1980s, and Germany might well have achieved a “western European” version of the EU even in the absence of German unification. The collapse of Communism and the reunification of Germany were not the prerequisites for the process of forming a single hyper-liberal bureaucratic superstate, though they may have accelerated it and expanded its geographic scope.

The partition of Germany required war and long-term occupation. It may be true that the world was better off when Germany was divided, but to achieve this goal, the world (and in particular, the United States) would have to commit itself to an eternal occupation of Germany. This seems unsustainable as a practical matter.

LA replies:

Yes, you’re right. Once the Soviet domination of East Germany ended, both Germanies wanted to be re-united, and the re-unification happened astonishingly quickly, much more quickly than most observers had expected. So the reality is, if the Germans want to be unified, there is no way to stop it, other than through the imposition of external force. And since that is out of the question, there is no escape from a unified Germany. Which leaves just two ways of limiting the power and reach of German hyper-liberalism: by ending the EU, or by ending German hyper-liberalism itself. The possibility of the first is continually bandied about in the context of the European finance problems, and we can hope that that happens. But the second, the end of German hyper-liberalism, would seem to be impossible. But that’s nothing new for us. To be a traditionalist opponent of liberal rule means to be both realistic and imaginative. On the realistic side, we must recognize that everything we believe in is impossible within the terms of the present liberal order. On the imaginative side, we understand that if the West is to survive and thrive, the liberal order must end, in Germany and elsewhere, and be replaced by a conservative and Christian order. Germany was Christianized once before, by the Carolingians; I believe it could happen again.

Also, as a friend and I were discussing last night, the only way the Germans can ever get over their destructive guilt and guilt-tripping about Nazism is through Jesus Christ. Liberalism can’t do it. In liberalism there is no forgiveness or removal of sins, but only a continual obsessive struggle against the same sins, resulting in liberal tyranny, the bureaucratic, politically correct suppression of both our ordinary and our higher selves. But Jesus Christ removes our sins: “This is my blood, which is shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins. Do this, as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me.” And how, apart from the eucharist, do we avail ourselves of this help, in day to day life? “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.” (I John 4:9.)

Since liberalism is a secularized form of Christianity, a heretical Christianity without God and Christ, it logically follows that the only way for liberal rule to be ended is through a return to God and Christ.

Sam H. writes from the Netherlands:

This recalls the classic position of Margaret Thatcher and François Mitterand regarding German unification. Mitterand said: “I like Germany so much I would prefer to have two of them”

Sam H. continues:

I think you’re entirely right about Germany. As one of her neighbors, I think I know of what I speak.

Gintas writes:

On the lighter side:

What happened to the tourist who ate in a Chinese restaurant in Germany?

An hour later he was hungry for power.

Ferg writes:

It seems to me that Hitler’s dream has become a reality. An anti Semitic Europe, united under socialism, and led and dominated by Germany, with a much diminished British influence and power. What more could he want? He got it all.

LA replies:

There’s an uncomfortable amount of truth in what you’re saying.

Kristor writes:

You write:

In liberalism there is no forgiveness or removal of sins, but only a continual obsessive struggle against the same sins, resulting in liberal tyranny, the bureaucratic, politically correct suppression of both our ordinary and our higher selves.

That’s really interesting. PC is just like the old Deuteronomic Law. Neither of them allow for remission of sins. Both turn in upon themselves, in ever more rococo legalisms that cannot actually be lived. But Liberalism is even more hopeless than the Law; for liberals have no Day of Atonement.

Joseph A. writes:

I have enjoyed reading the thread on Germany, though I thought that Daniel S.’s comment set a bad tone for the discussion:

“If this is all that remains of Germany, then the quicker it disappears as a nation the better. One is almost tempted to say that they deserve to be swallowed up by the very Muslims they grovel before and for which they use their court system as an agent. I have as much contempt for modern Germany as I have for modern Britain.”

[LA replies: You’re right. I should have dissociated myself from Daniel’s comment that Germany should disappear. I’m sorry I missed that.]

I have a friend who says the same thing about Europe in general. The obvious problem is that a significant minority of Germans (as well as Brits, Danes, Italians, Canadians, Australians, Americans, and so on) are not deluded, suicidal morons, and yet they must suffer the demise of their nation along with the foolish majority.

I also finally found a blind spot in Kristor’s moral imagination! Kristor writes:

“That’s really interesting. PC is just like the old Deuteronomic Law. Neither of them allow for remission of sins. Both turn in upon themselves, in ever more rococo legalisms that cannot actually be lived. But Liberalism is even more hopeless than the Law; for liberals have no Day of Atonement.”

What Kristor forgets is that there is such a leftist Day of Atonement. It is called Election Day. By electing socialists who redistribute wealth and establish privileges for the least among us, Democrats purge themselves with hyssop, and they shall be clean. It is the only way to atone for their being whiter than snow.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 06, 2011 06:46 PM | Send