What is the German’s fatherland?
So name the great land to me, already!
As far as the German tongue sounds
And sings songs to God in heaven:
That shall it be! That shall it be!
That, brave German, call that yours!That is the German’s fatherland,
Where oaths are sworn with curled hand,
Where loyalty blazes brightly from the eye
And love sits warmly in the heart.
That shall it be,
That, brave German, shall it be!—Ernst Moritz Arndt
GERMANY is often a difficult land for foreigners to understand. For most of its history, under the Holy Roman Empire (800-1806), the Confederation of the Rhine (1805-1814), and the Germanic Confederation (1815-1866), it was a very decentralized gathering of small states — at one time numbering as many as 300. Starting in 1871, with the proclamation of a German Empire under Prussian dominance, it managed to combine centralism and federalism in an unsteady dance. Despite the catastrophe of World War I, this continued — albeit without the stabilizing influence of the Prussian and the other Monarchs — under the Weimar Republic (1918-1933). The Twelve-Year-Reich first centralised, and then went into World War II. Two Germanies — one an American, the other a Soviet satellite — then emerged after that conflict. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the two reunited into the present entity on October 3, 1990.
While the National Socialist heritage was firmly rejected — and despite the ongoing horrors in East Germany until 1989 — the current Generation of ’68 (Boomer) leadership in Germany still look and occasionally find Nazis under every bed they happen to dislike. But what has really spurred a rise in what the establishment consider “Right Wing Extremism” has been the rise in the numbers of Muslims since September of 2015. At that time, Chancellor Angela Merkel threw open the borders to refugees from Muslim countries. To-day, about one in five residents were born outside Germany; of those born outside the EU, most come from Muslim majority countries. From 2015 to 2016, the number of suspected crimes by refugees, asylum-seekers, and illegal immigrants increased by 52.7% percent to 175,438. On New Year’s Eve 2015-2016, 1,500 women were raped by primarily North African men across the country — and various bizarre incidents continue to the present day.
Whie the Federal and State authorities seem blissfully unaware of that problem, however, one grave threat did arise to trouble the heavily burdened minds of the guardians of law and order in the Federal Republic. Heinrich XIII, Prince Reuss, and 24 other people were arrested on the morning of December 7, 2022, in a large-scale police operation. This major defence operation included approximately 3,000 officers in eleven German states and in two cases abroad, on suspicion of planning a coup d’état. In addition to the twenty-five primarily elderly plotters, an arsenal of one hunting rifle and a pistol rifle was found. Then-Chancellor Olaf Scholz declared that the plotters were as great a treat to the Federal Republic of Germany as the January 6 insurrectionists had been to the United States of America — a comment this writer heartily agreed with.
So be aware that the current governing circles in Germany — an unsteady coalition of Christian Democrats, Socialists, and Greens meant to keep out of power what they consider the “Far Right” (by which they mean the Alternative for Germany, or AfD) — are concerned not with what perhaps a majority of Germans fear, but with the obvious threat to their current government jobs. This leads them into some strange tactics, indeed.
One problem, of course, is definition. What they want is for the AfD and everyone else worried about immigration or opposed to abortion and depopulation to be Nazis. Unfortunately for them, the reality is that the National Socialists were a movement of the Left; the resistance to the Brownshirts — save for the Communists before and after the Soviet Union’s brief rapprochement with Hitler — were primarily Christians, Conservatives, and Monarchists. As a result, the current regime has a problem with their legacy. While forced to praise them because of their heroic stances, they also have to criticise them for their lack of “democratic” fervour.
With all of this in the background, the AfD have been gathering strength — especially in the former East Germany. This year, voters in Baden-Württemberg, Rhineland-Palatinate, Berlin, Saxony-Anhalt, and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania will elect new state parliaments. There is a good chance the latter two will elect a solid majority of AfD legislators. At that point there is an even better chance that the Country’s supreme court will void the elections — in the name of democracy, and the Federal Government shall take over the two erring States’ governments — as the National Socialists did that of Prussia in 1934.
Should that happen, the results would be anyone’s guess. Certainly the “Far Right” would be radicalised by the proof positive that real change shall not be permitted through the ballot box. If the Muslim crime issue continues to rise, and Islamists become ever more brazen in the face of quiescent elected authorities, the situation will become quite unpleasant.
But let’s take a closer look at the AfD. The Preamble to their party programme in part reads: “We are committed with all our strength to fundamentally renewing our country in the spirit of freedom and democracy and to restoring these very principles to their rightful place. We are open to the world, but want to be and remain German. We want to permanently preserve human dignity, the family with children, our Western Christian culture, our language and traditions in a peaceful, democratic and sovereign nation-state of the German people.”
Under the heading “Democracy and fundamental values,” they call for “Referenda based on the Swiss model”; “Adapting party financing to constitutional law”; “Free list election and free mandate”; “Direct election of the Federal President by the people”; and “Introduction of a criminal offense of tax waste”. Of these, the direct election of the president by the people rather than parliament, as is the current practise, might be considered the most radical. This is because the present system was created precisely to prevent the president from becoming more than a figurehead. It is feared that this would be the beginning of an executive presidency, as was the case during Weimar.
The second section is “Europe and the EURO.” Here we find “Europe must not become a centralist federal state”; “Returning powers to nation states”; “Referendum on the Euro”; and “No to banking union”. Since Germany, with France, is the linchpin of the growing power of the EU, this would scotch the attempts of the Eurocrats to do precisely that. This entire plank is therefore considered very radical.
Under “Internal Security and Justice” are listed “Strengthening the police and improving criminal justice”; “Independent prosecutors and judges” (this move is endorsed by the German Association of Judges); “Harsher punishments for attacks on public officials” (this refers to attacks on police, firemen, and other first responders); “Victim protection instead of perpetrator protection”; “Gun laws do not need to be tightened”; “Combating organized crime sustainably”; and “Protecting Germany’s borders”. This last is considered radical.
“Foreign and Security Policy” contains some very radical points indeed: “NATO only as a defensive alliance;” “Better relations with Russia”; “No European Army”; “Reinstate conscription”; and “Development aid” (which would be intended to help Third World Nations help keep their peoples at home).
“Labour market and social policy” deals with a few potential minefields as far as those currently in charge of the country are concerned: while “Maintaining the minimum wage” might not be too upsetting for them, “Consideration of children and child-rearing contributions in social security and pensions” might be. “Activating basic income support leads to worthwhile work” seems anodyne enough, however. “Valuing the value of care provided by family members to the elderly” also seems rather edgy.
But the AfD really leave the Reservation with “Families and children.” Here, the measures suggested ooze radicalism from every pore: “Commitment to the traditional family as a guiding principle”; “More children instead of mass immigration”; “Stopping discrimination against stay-at-home mothers”; and “A welcoming culture for newborns and unborn children”. One can immediately see and understand the outrage in official circles!
Even more rage provoking must be “Culture, language and identity.” “German dominant culture instead of multiculturalism”; “The German language as the center of our identity”; perhaps worst of all — “Islam does not belong to Germany”! Through the rest of the programme are other frightful points: “Diploma, Master’s degree and state examination again — no more ‘gender research;'” and perhaps worst of all: “No direct immigration into the social welfare system!”
Now, it will be noted that nowhere here is a call for a corporate state, a rehabilitation of the National Socialists, or a restoration of any or all of the German Monarchies overthrown in 1918. All that appears is what none but the hopelessly foolish would consider more than a reasonable tweaking of the current system. The fact that it is considered radical by the current elites in power tells us a great more about them than it does the AfD.
