I’m Rinso-White, Herr Bundespräsident

“I’m Rinso-white”; that’s a line from one of the scenes in Hair, specifically the lead-in to “Ain’t Got No.”  The expression is actually older than that, and comes from the laundry detergent’s old advertising campaigns.  Rinso-white apparently was the thing to be.  In Europe the equivalent was and remains Persil.  John Mortimer uses the brand-name as a nickname for a notoriously “bent copper,” D.I. “Persil” White.  In the late 1940s and 1950s the product’s name acquired a more sinister overtone, at least in central Europe, and among a very definable group.

It’s very much true that success has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan.  And seldom has there ever been a more orphaned orphan in that respect than the Nazi state.  After May, 1945 all those tens of thousands — hell, millions — of Germans who cheered themselves hoarse as Hitler and his jack-booted thugs, his legions of soldiers, fleets of tanks, and swarms of aircraft marched, rumbled, and screamed past mysteriously vanished into the ground, as if they’d never been there.  Whatever else they may have said among themselves, publicly at least you couldn’t find a True Believer with a search warrant.  It’s sort of the flip side of the phenomenon that after the war the entire population of France turned out to have been active in the Resistance (makes you wonder how they managed so effectively to round up and ship off their Jewish population . . . perhaps the Jews self-deported?).

[In that connection I’ll observe that when my father served in Army counterintelligence, stationed in Germany from 1964-65, he was alerted to listen very carefully to what the slightly older Germans, the ones who would be in their mid-40s by that point, got to saying when you’d poured enough beer down them.  Sure enough, it was even so.  Paul Fussell may have noticed a reluctance to speak — while sober and with an American present — about just exactly what one was doing during those twelve years from 1933 to 1945, but maybe that’s because he didn’t get drunk enough with enough Germans of the right ages and backgrounds.  The expression “the good old days” meant something very specific to Germans of a certain age range, and it was an expression they used not infrequently among themselves.]

The inability to find anyone who’d ever agreed with the Nazis, either as a philosophical proposition or just from the standpoint of practical politics — by which I mean taking over Europe and subjecting it to direct rule by or effective subordination to Germany — was nowhere more pronounced than among precisely those groups who had been the most effective at implementing the take-over.  The very senior officials of Nazi Germany were unredeemable, by and large.  Too many corpses about the place and all.  Too bad, that; for them the “good old days” would never come again.  Oh sure, there were exceptions — Field Marshal Erich von Manstein (who point-blank refused to join the anti-Hitler conspiracy with the statement that “Prussian field marshals do not mutiny”) comes to mind — who managed to pick back up their old Nazi careers under the federal German banner, but by and large they were, officially at least, tainted goods.  It was in the next level down, among the faceless bureaucracy, still pretty senior and able not only to implement policy but to have had a direct hand in formulating it, in steering the “right” — by which is meant the wrong — people to the right places, that post-war Germany presented a conundrum.  There were way too many of them for the networks of mutual support to keep up outside active employment; they had no skills other than being government bureaucrats; and they couldn’t all run to the welcoming arms of South America.

These were the people at the level of Adolf Eichmann.  His defense, if you recall, was that he was just a functionary implementing decisions his superiors had made, that he was bound to follow at peril literally of his life.  Except he wasn’t any such thing.  He was, in fact, the Holocaust’s johnny-on-the-spot for rounding up hundreds of thousands of Jews and shipping them off to be exterminated.  He was not just an executive but rather also a decision-maker.  And in the end he was convicted as such and danced at the end of a noose for it.

Eichmann’s central difficulty in defending himself may well have been his institutional affiliation.  He was SS, an organization which started out as Hitler’s personal bodyguard and by the end of the war had metastasized into nearly a state within the state.  Nowadays people associate the concept of “Auschwitz” with extermination.  What isn’t as well-known, at least not in the Anglosphere, is that the extermination camp was Auschwitz-Birkenau, or “Auschwitz II,” and that camp only came into its own as an industrialized killing facility towards 1943-44, by which time three-quarters of all the Jews who would die in the Holocaust had already been killed.  There was, however, more to Auschwitz than just Birkenau; there were extensive industrial facilities, owned and operated by the SS and manned with the inmates who had not been killed upon arrival.  The SS owned other industrial facilities all over Germany and the occupied territories.  By the end of the war the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (RSHA), or the Reich Main Security Office, an SS sub-organization, had encompassed the SD, the Sicherheitsdienst (Security Service), a secret police principally employed outside Germany in the East, and the Gestapo (Geheime Staatspolizei, or secret state police), which was the principal secret and political police within Germany and in the West.  Then there was the Waffen-SS, the separate army run by the SS, and numerous other unsavory organizations.  The SS managed to liquidate and absorb the competencies of the Abwehr, the military counterintelligence department (in April, 1945 they hanged its former head, Admiral Canaris, and his assistant, Hans Oster, the latter among the most committed and vociferous anti-Nazis; it was Oster who went to the Dutch embassy on the evening of May 9, 1940, and told them, “Tomorrow morning at 4:00.”)  The entire SS and all its works were damned by the Allies after the war as a criminal enterprise.  No one wanted to know anything about it, to have had anything to do with it, even to admit that it had once existed.

Other organizations did not have the public relations problems the SS did.  One agency in particular managed for decades to maintain the fiction that it not only had never willingly cooperated with Nazism but had been a hot-house of active opposition conspirators.  We refer to the Auswärtiges Amt, the Foreign Office.  Internally it referred (and still refers) to itself as “das Amt.”  Its politico-cultural antecedents were the old nobility of Prussia and the Empire.  Commoners, the recently-ennobled, and of course Jews needn’t apply, in those days.  The Prussian foreign service was the preserve of people like Otto von Bismarck, who while still a junior diplomat simply took off, without formal leave, for several months to pursue an affair with another man’s wife.  When someone back at home office observed he might as well get back to the job he was being paid to do, Bismarck huffed that he had no intent of giving an account of his domestic arrangements to anyone, and carried on as before.  He suffered no career repercussions.  In 1862 King Wilhelm I called him to Berlin to become minister-president of Prussia and steam-roll the Prussian Landtag on the issue of army appropriations.  It was the place where the “mediatized” nobility, who had lost their sovereign powers and territories in the Napoleonic invasions and the subsequent pan-European settlement of 1814 but who were still considered marriageable by the remaining sovereign houses, found a home if they absolutely had to earn some income.  Not a few of them could — and doubtless did — sniff with Bismarck that the Hohenzollerns were no more than a “Swabian family no better than mine.”

After the Great War — a war, by the way, which the Amt played no small part in bringing about with its combination of ham-fisted confrontationalism towards France and Britain (e.g. the Agadir incident in 1911) and its crawling subservience to Wilhelm II — it remained to a large extent what it had been.  It did, a tiny bit, open its ranks up to a few Jews and the classes who formerly would have become officers in the army or navy.  But as the major national institution which survived intact (Versailles annihilated the army and navy, flat prohibited an air force, confiscated most of the merchant marine, and laid crippling indemnities on the economy which had to be satisfied from the major industries) it was able to preserve to a large degree its internal culture.

Then came 1933.  If you buy the official line from the post-1949 Amt, for the next twelve years its officials and functionaries seldom let a chance go by to pour sand in the gears, shove wrenches in the spokes, and generally gum up the works of the Nazi enterprise.  This was when they weren’t outright conspiring to bring down that horrid regime.  And so forth.  In truth there were senior members of the Amt who actively joined the opposition, or who publicly opposed the regime in the years after it seized power.  The latter group were mostly forced out well before the war started.  Of the former group, after the July 20 Plot failed most of them were executed. Hans Bernd Gisevius went into hiding in Switzerland and survived.  Ulrich von Hassell (irony alert:  Admiral Tirpitz’s son-in-law), who had been ambassador to Italy, didn’t.  Hans Bernd von Haeften was among the first group hanged at Plötzensee in August, 1944.  Friedrich Warner Graf von der Schulenberg had been ambassador to the Soviet Union; he too was executed.

Diplomats are schooled in sniffing out tiny hand-holds on sheer cliffs.  It’s their stock-in-trade, really.  Does Country X really demand thus-and-such, or might it be willing to accept so-and-so with a hint of this-and-that, which is pretty damned close to such-and-such but not quite, or not quite yet.  Sure enough, the (former and soon-to-be once-again) diplomats of the Wilhelmstraße realized that with so many of their actual anti-Nazis dead, there was no one to deny their own affiliation with the dead heroes.  And the myth of the Amt’s nobility and purity was born.

I say “myth” because you see, the Amt was in it up its well-bred shoulders.  Their senior officials voluntarily joined the party and its organizations in droves, even beyond the extent of politely obtaining a party card.  In the occupied countries they actively collaborated with the SD, the Gestapo, the SS, the Arbeitsfront (the slave-labor outfit headed by Robert Ley, who killed himself before he could be tried at Nuremberg; we got Fritz Sauckel, though, Goering’s field agent in the four-year plan program and the Nazis’ chief slaver in occupied Europe), and the entire rest of the Nazi machinery of death and oppression.  In fact, in several countries it was the Amt who took the lead in locating Jews and other candidates for deportation and who made suggestions to the SS/SD/Gestapo about how better to implement the Final Solution and the rest of the program of oppression.

How is this now known, what was for decades successfully hidden?  Because the German government a number of years ago commissioned a study to tell the actual, full story.  Granted, it was long after anyone personally implicated was available to have his pension revoked or — heaven forfend! — go to prison, but at least it was set as its task the puncturing of the thick web of lies.  And it did exactly that, publishing in 2004 an enormous door-stop of a book:  Das Amt und die Vergangenheit: Deutsche Diplomaten im Dritten Reich und in der Bundesrepublik (The Office and the Past: German Diplomats in the Third Reich and the Federal Republic ), a copy of which I picked up in 2011.  They actually sat down and paged through the archives, finding who joined the party under what circumstances and when; who was pressed into early retirement when he wouldn’t join; who joined not only the party but specific party organizations . . . like the SS, for example; who was responsible for making precisely which decisions about specific actions and policies, who communicated with whom about what and when.

And most importantly, the book lays out in sordid detail who was involved after the war in the wholesale production of what became known as “Persilscheine,” or “Persil certificates.”  That’s what they called the official certifications of non-culpability that were the magic ticket to getting back on the government payroll, specifically in the new Auswärtiges Amt of the Federal Republic of Germany beginning in 1949.  Very briefly summarized, what happened was that the old Amt officials attested to each other’s anti-Nazi bona fides; the anchor points were tied to the now-dead, and therefore unable to contradict, actual anti-Nazis.  It was a mutual-exoneration society, in short.

At the center of it was Ernst von Weizsäcker, who’d joined the Weimar Auswärtiges Amt in 1920, after serving in the Kaiserliche Marine during the war (he’d been Admiral Scheer’s flag lieutenant at Jutland in 1916).  He became a bureaucrat’s bureaucrat, deeply embedded in the power structure of the Amt instead of out in the field for most of his career.  He was the go-to guy who made or broke careers by steering friends and stifling opponents.  And at various times he was also involved in the Amt’s policy-making process.  In short, he had pretty much full knowledge of what was going on in occupied Europe, and why, and what was happening to the victims.  And he sat at his desk for most of the war, working the levers, willingly in service to the regime.  There’s no credible indication at all that he was anything other than a willing servant of Hitler’s, although he from time to time did disagree on things like whether liquidating Czechoslovakia just in 1938 was a good idea . . . or whether they maybe ought to wait a bit before liquidating it . . . so as to be better able to fend off Britain and France while feeding on the corpse of Czechoslovakian independence.

We hanged his ultimate boss, Ribbentropp, at Nuremberg.  Ol’ Joachim was an outsider, though, a “Quereinsteiger,” whose first job in the Amt was as foreign minister.  He brought a bunch of his people with him, and they were of course thoroughly resented by the lifers (such as Weizsäcker).  When it came time to try the functionaries at what became known as the Ministries Trial, Weizsäcker was the lead defendant.  That trial was the next-to-last trial of the major Nazi war criminals, and by that point the resources, time, and patience of the prosecuting powers was nearing its end.  The lead prosecutor, Telford Taylor (who’d been chief assistant to Robert Jackson at the first, big International Military Tribunal trial at Nuremberg), had seen his case slowly sift through his fingers as he progressively lost the behind-the-scenes administrative battles to bring the full weight of the evidence to bear on the defendants.  By the time the trials started in January, 1948 he was down to a passel of figure-head defendants, including Weizsäcker.  He convicted almost all of them, but in the case of ol’ Ernst, the conviction was the object of an almost immediate and highly coordinated public relations campaign, which in 1950 succeeded.  He’d been sentenced to seven years in 1949 (inclusive of time served; he’d been arrested on his return from the Vatican, where he’d been ambassador since 1943, only in 1946); that was reduced to five years in 1950, and that same year they let him out.  He died the next year.

A key player in coordinating the exoneration efforts from the outside was his son, Richard von Weizsäcker, who in 1948 had been a law student and an active member of his defense team.  When daddy was convicted he became a central point of organization for the effort to have his father’s conviction set aside, either legally or effectively in fact (as the latter indeed happened).  Doing so also necessarily closely involved Richard in white-washing the war-time deeds of other Amt insiders, because of course their testimony in support of his father was only as useful as their own purity.  All of which is to say that Richard von Weizsäcker was as closely involved as was possible in sweeping under the rug the institutional guilt, the willing collaboration, of his father’s ministry in the butchery that was Nazi Germany abroad.

Over the rest of the 1950s the new Amt absorbed more and more of its former officials, each one holding (proudly? we can hope not) his Persilschein, attesting that he was untainted by his past.  Towards the 1970s and early 1980s these people began to retire, and almost without exception they receded into the twilight accompanied by fulsome official praise, and with full and generous state pensions.

And Richard von Weizsäcker?  Dutiful son, defender of his Nazi father, fetched up as Bundespräsident in 1984, an office he kept until 1994.  In Germany the Bundespräsident is the official head of state; the Kanzler is merely the head of government.  He is chosen by the Bundestag, and occupies a public position that is theoretically supposed to be above politics.  He is, to the extent a nation can be said to have a political conscience, supposedly the conscience of the country.  If there are unpalatable truths to be spoken, it is expected that the Bundespräsident will speak them.  Richard was Bundespräsident while I was spending my second junior year in Germany in the mid-1980s, and he was viewed, both then and later, as something of a secular saint.

He died last week, and yesterday Germany said good-bye to him in a state funeral.  At the risk of understatement, the parade of speakers somehow failed to mention his efforts in the concealment of war crimes, and the critical nature of his efforts in ensuring that war criminals and collaborators in war crimes not only were not punished, but returned to power in the same roles they had filled during the war.  Specifically mentioned was his address to the nation on May 8, 1985, the 40th anniversary of the surrender; he characterized that as a “day of liberation,” by which of course he meant that it was a liberation for Germany as well.  Which is true enough, but one has to ponder how much credit a prisoner is entitled to who viciously fights, to the death, those who would strike the fetters from his arms and legs.  His Christian faith was also praised as a center-point for his effectiveness as a politician and human (he served from 1964-7, and then again from 1979-81 as president of the Lutheran Council in Germany).  I’m sure he was a good Christian boy, as we say around here.

He also was a key figure in the white-washing of an entire institution’s active participation in the crimes against humanity of the regime his father so diligently served.  And in ensuring that the men on whose skirts, if not on whose hands, the blood of millions glared in bright red walked freely the halls of power in the reconstituted Germany.

For those who will never read Das Amt und die Vergangenheit (it’s not available in translation, more’s the pity), I guess that Richard von Weizsäcker is once and forevermore Rinso-white.

Gosh, Maybe They Have a Point?

A short while ago I “throwed” (as we say in the country) up a post on PEGIDA (or “Pegida,” as it’s commonly, but incorrectly, rendered), the “Patriotic Europeans Against Islamization of the Occident” movement which started in Dresden and now has a good deal of the hand-wringing class in Germany up in arms.

Since then there has been quite a bit of turmoil within the ranks, to the extent they can be said to have ranks.  The fellow who was the founder of the outfit, Lutz Bachmann, was forced to bail out when it became widely known that he had put up a picture of himself on Facebook wearing a Hitler moustache and with the famous ill-combed hair hanging off the side of his head.  He also expressed some opinions about immigrants and asylum-seekers that were fairly pointed and crude.  In truth he does in that picture bear something of a resemblance to Hitler, perhaps not as eerie as the fellow who played him in Downfall.  Bachmann’s not giving the Hitlergruß in the picture, which is good for him, because that’s a criminal offense in Germany, nor are there any Nazi symbols, uniforms, tracts, etc. to see.  But still, no matter where you go in the world there’s Shit You Don’t Kid Around About, and in Germany that’s one of them.  So he had to go.  By the way, the effort by mainstream politicians to tie him formally to AfD, Alternative für Deutschland, the rising fourth party in the country, hasn’t worked.

More seriously, Bachmann’s efforts, notwithstanding his resignation from the leadership slot, to pull the levers and control the movement, has lead another four members of the leadership to resign, among them Kathrin Oertel, their public speaker.  They were unwilling to continue onwards with Bachmann’s interference, and also, it seems, not with him associated with the movement at all, given his public statements.  They took a stand on principle, in other words.  You can oppose unlimited mass immigration from places that are irredeemably hostile to Western culture without sliming the actual individuals themselves.  They were willing to do the former but not the latter.  Good for them, I suppose.

Of course, this makes the question of who’s calling the shots all the more important.  PEGIDA wouldn’t be the first mass movement to have its original leadership effectively purged, whether quasi-voluntarily or not, and then be taken over by people a helluva lot less scrupulous than they were.

Be all that as it may, among the “concerned” rhetoric of the hand-wringing classes is the insistent question of just what does “Islamization” mean.  Asking the question that way is of course supposed to highlight that all these PEGIDA trolls don’t even know or understand what it is they’re protesting against.  I mean, unless you can “define” Islamization you can’t be against it, can you?  And by “define” we mean write something down which is internally coherent, comprehensive, not over-inclusive, and easy to hold up to any given set of facts to see if it fits in the frame.

I’d observe that this insistence of being able concretely to define “Islamization” is not at all dissimilar to the insistence that unless you can define “obscenity” you can’t be against that, either.  I forget which of the Supreme Court justices it was who, in an unfamiliar outburst of common sense, pointed out that whatever “obscenity” might or might not be in the abstract, he knew it when he saw it.  By like token, you can tell Islamization when you see it.

Like this story from this morning’s Frankfurter Allgemeine ZeitungA 19-year-old girl was found dead in Darmstadt, in a park.  No missing person report was filed, no attempt made to hide the corpse’s identity.  Turns out the perps were her parents.  Her parents.  Both parents.  Her father strangled her, then he and her mother carried her body to a park and dumped it.  Dumped out in the leaves and dirt the little girl she bounced on her knee, whom she taught her first words, her colors.  Whom she tickled as she bathed, and with whom she laughed at all the silly things tiny children say.

The reason:  She wanted to marry a boy they didn’t approve of.

Parents, daughter, and boyfriend are all described as “Germans of Pakistani origin.”  Bullshit.  They’re Pakistanis who happen to living in Germany.

And this, all you hand-wringers, is Islamization of the Occident.  Now, in 2015, it is acceptable in that culture to slaughter your own child because you don’t like whom she fell in love with.  Let’s put this in perspective:  Not even in the Dark Ages, in the time of the Merovingians, did ordinary European parents kill their daughters for loving out of bounds.  I can’t even recall reading on any instances in which nobility or royalty, for whom these decisions had peace-versus-war implications, killed their children, male or female.  Might have locked them up in a convent or monastery, sure; but I’m going to take a lot of convincing before I consider that as being in the same league as taking your own hands and choking off the breath of life in your 19-year-old daughter’s throat.

Someone remind me again why it’s a wicked thing to question whether the continued uncontrolled introduction of people from cultures where such things are not only done, but the done thing, is a good idea for Western Civilization.

PEGIDA and the Projection of the Leftists

Once upon a time I used CNN’s web site as my internet start page.  As Inspector Clouseau would say, not any more.  Ever since 2006, when CNN joyfully enlisted itself in Al Qaeda’s effort to throw the mid-term elections by releasing a propaganda film showing American troops being shot by terrorists, by broadcasting and re-broadcasting the short film, I have used the web site of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung as my start page.  It’s a convenient way to keep my language skills from completely atrophying, and it can provide some extremely interesting cross-fixes on issues that concern not only Germany and Europe, but the entire world.  Without going into the subject too deeply, each society has its baggage, baggage which prevents certain topics from being discussed as honestly as in places which don’t have that specific baggage to carry.  Just by way of example, here in the U.S. it’s the legacy of chattel slavery; in Germany it’s the legacy of the Holocaust; in Britain it’s the legacy of the Empire; in Russia it’s the omerta which still hangs over a world full of collaborators in the most murderous ideology every to have plagued the Western world.

All of which is a very roundabout way of saying I’ve been, not exactly monitoring, but paying some degree of attention to a group that has coalesced in Germany in recent months and which calls itself Patriotische Europäer Gegen Islamisierung des Abendlandes, or PEGIDA.  Translated that works out in round numbers to Patriotic Europeans Against Islamization of the Occident.  I say “coalesced” because it’s not really terribly plain what sort of organizational structure, if any, they have.  In this respect they bear a more than passing resemblance to the Tea Party movement here.  It does not appear to be an astroturf movement, like MoveOn.org, or the Pew Foundation, or a front group for operations who dare not present themselves in daylight, as was the case for the communist/anarchist/terrorist backers of the “Occupy” groups.  It appears to be a more or less genuinely grassroots outfit, for the time being.  That’s neither speaking good or ill of it, only that the demonstrators are — at least at the moment — by and large unguided.  Again, that could bode well or ill, depending on how things develop.  They’re not being used, which is good, but then they’re ripe for being used, which is bad.

The center of gravity of PEGIDA seems to be in Dresden, although demonstrations have occurred elsewhere, most prominently in Cologne, where the cathedral doyens took it upon themselves to cut the lights off at the cathedral so that it couldn’t be used as a photo-backdrop.  Whatever.  Every Monday in Dresden they turn out by the thousand to march for, or against, whatever it is they think they’re doing it for.  Their first such march of 2015 drew something like 18,000 participants.  It’s been claimed that Dresden being the focal point is curious because there are so many fewer Muslims there than elsewhere in Germany.  I’m not sure that’s all that inexplicable; it’s why, after all, you find firefighting equipment and conduct fire drills in buildings that aren’t already burning.

But what’s this all about?  The PEGIDA movement is universally described as “right-wing” and “anti-immigrant”:  Publications from the predictable to those which ought to know better join in.  A few samplings:

The Guardian tells us, “German anti-immigrant groups have been quick to respond to the murderous attacks in Paris saying they are proof of the significant threat posed by Islamists[.]  Pegida, or Patriotic Europeans against the Islamisation of the Western World, a right-wing populist group which has been gaining support in weekly demonstrations since October, said in a statement that the attacks confirmed their views.”

From National Review, we have:  “it does seem that the rise of Pegida is yet another example of the truth of Mark Steyn’s maxim that I will quote yet again:  ‘If the political culture forbids respectable politicians from raising certain topics, then the electorate will turn to unrespectable ones.'”  In the author’s defense, he does observe that at least some of the participants in this movement have . . . ummmmmm . . . other affiliations which are partially or wholly objectionable.  On the other hand, he ought to know better than to tar with a single brush a movement which is (again, thus far) so unstructured.  Just because the Democrat Party here enjoys and in fact solicits support from numerous groups whose objectives and methods are abhorrent to the interests of the United States, do we paste single labels on it and its candidates?  How about the NAACP?  Of course not.

EurActiv.com shares with us:  “Pegida defames Islam in general.  At Pegida demonstrations, speakers not only took aim at radical Muslims but at Islam as a whole. Muslim burial rites were criticised, for example.”  The same article also mentions one of the problems with trying to get a grip on who and what PEGIDA is actually about:  “Up until recently, Pegida’s organisers had turned down requests to hold talks with political parties, claiming it desired to remain nonpartisan. Interview requests from German media are also usually rejected by the alliance.”  Gee whiz; level accusations, however thickly padded with code-words (and sometimes not even that veiled), of being a quasi-Nazi resurgence movement, and the people you’re accusing get reluctant to talk with you.  Who could have seen that coming?  And I’ll note that you cannot “defame” an idea; you can disparage it, hold it up to ridicule, even savagely attack it.  But “defamation” is something that is peculiar to people and their reputations (even “trade disparagement” is, at bottom, tied to people’s business reputations).

Newsweek (yeah, it’s still out there, not that anyone cares) labels it an “anti-immigrant movement.”  In a subtle elision of their news section with their reviews of current fiction, they bring us this quotation from the present German Interior Minister:  “German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere said the attack in Paris had nothing to do with Islam.  ‘Islamic extremists and Islamic terror are something entirely different from Islam,’ he said. ‘It is immensely important to underscore that difference on a day like today.'”  No.  Seriously.  He really said that.  Gunmen shoot up a newspaper office, shouting that Allah is great! and The Prophet is avenged, and that has “nothing” to do with Islam.

The Beeb goes for the click-bait headline:  Anti-Islam Pegida March in City of Dresden, but then goes on to flirt with heresy to its resolutely leftish agenda:  “What has startled politicians, though, is that many in the crowds at Dresden are not extremists or neo-Nazis. As conservative politician Wolfgang Bosbach puts it, these are concerned mothers and pensioners.”

Slate tells us, “Xenophobia is Going Mainstream in Germany“.  Here we’ve got a good example of the calling-them-Nazis-but-not-using-the-word.  “So far, PEGIDA has been smarter. They are taking the same ideas that traditionally were only voiced by scary guys with shaved heads and armbands—the anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiments—and packaging them in a way that normal middle-class Germans can embrace.”  And what are the “same ideas” shared by “scary guys with shaved heads and armbands”?  Why, those are neo-Nazi outfits.  And sacre bleu! we’ve got folks who explicitly deny being xenophobic and who’ll quote MLK at you “packaging” Nazi ideas so as to dupe regular folks.  But hist!  What’s this:  “PEGIDA’s opponents so far have been trying to dismiss it as part and parcel of a movement that includes people who wave swastikas and try to burn down mosques. “They are clearly Nazis,” one observer in Dresden commented to the New York Times. But to a lot of Germans, that’s not so clear.  PEGIDA has appeal beyond the traditional far-right fringe, and it would be a mistake for German leaders and the media to simply dismiss it.”  Maybe something that 34% of your population thinks has a point isn’t all that far out after all (or maybe it is; recall that Hitler polled over 40% in his last election).

For an article that eschews the customary why-bother-looking labels (although the author can’t resist the frisson-of-fear “shadowy”), we have at BuzzFeed someone who actually seems to have taken a look at at least a few of the actual people involved.

“In an interview at a hotel bar in Dresden’s historic center, [Kathrin] Oertel, the PEGIDA organizer, said that she and a dozen friends felt they had had enough after the Kurdish rebel group PKK and their German supporters held a rally in central Dresden in early October. ‘We don’t want them to carry out their quarrels on our streets,’ she said. ‘This isn’t any of our business.’  * * *  Oertel, 36, a business consultant and mother of three, said that the ‘Islamification’ of her home state of Saxony, where less than 3% of the population are foreigners, may not seem like a problem. ‘The Muslims are making it a problem,’ said Oertel, who has long blonde hair and was dressed all in black. She said it started in her children’s school, where Muslim girls wear headscarves and don’t take part in swimming lessons. ‘I don’t have anything against Christians or Buddhists or Jews,’ Oertel, an atheist, said. ‘They don’t bother me and don’t demand I observe certain rules so as not to offend them.’”

All of the above are other people’s take on it.  Does PEGIDA have anything to say for itself?  Turns out, it does, or rather might, assuming this document is legitimate:  A position paper of what PEGIDA is for, and what it is against:  Among the things they say (editorial aside: they fall prey to the annoying habit of ending every sentence with an exclamation!):

1.    They claim to be for the acceptance of war refugees and the religiously persecuted.

2.    They claim to be for the right and duty of integration into German society (contrast, for example, the official Nazi position that a Jew could never be a German).

3.    They claim to be for a reduction in the case load of social workers attending to asylum seekers’ needs.  They claim it is presently 200:1, which they point out — correctly, I suggest — is the equivalent of no help at all.

4.    In asylum applications, they claim to be for a process similar to Holland’s or Switzerland’s, and an increase in resources to “massively” sink the processing and decision time.

5.    They claim to be for “resistance” to a misogynist, violence-focused political ideology (Islamization is plainly meant) but deny being against resident “integrated” Muslims.

6.    They claim to be for an immigration policy after the models of Canada, South Africa, Switzerland, and Australia.  I’ll mark this one with a “huh?” since I know bugger all about how those places do it.

7.    They claim to be for “sexual self-determination.”  Whatever; I’ll observe that this position alone makes it incompatible with Islam.

8.    They claim to be for the preservation and protection of “our Judeo-Christian” “geprägte” culture.  That last word is significant.  “Prägen” is a verb which means “stamp,” as in to stamp a coin, or to stamp something with characteristics by influence.  It doesn’t imply identity.  This is important, because only a liar or a fool would deny that in fact Western civilization is profoundly stamped by Judeo-Christian ideas, and only a liar could deny that Islam wants nothing at all to do with large swathes of that.

9.    They claim to be for the introduction of plebiscites along the Swiss model.

10.    They claim to be against permitting “parallel societies” to arise, with specific reference to their structuring along the lines of sharia.  This is scarcely a newly-discovered issue in Germany.  The FAZ itself has repeatedly in recent times run articles and even series of articles on the subject.  I wrote at some length about one such here.

11.    They claim to be against radicalism, whether political or religious, and against preachers of hate, of whatever religion.

So that’s what they say about themselves.  They might be lying.  They might be using anodyne phrasing to mask something a very great deal more sinister.  Remember the Nazis came out with a 25-point agenda in 1920, not a single point of which mentioned  or even came close to implying the slaughter of every Jew in every corner of Europe they could lay hands on.  Said nothing about invading Eastern Europe and starving to death every Slav whom they didn’t work to death.  On the other hand, before concluding that whoever put this PEGIDA position paper together really means something different, I’m going to need a great deal more convincing than self-serving statements from mainstream politicians whose fear is transparently one of lost votes and money.  Angela Merkel may huff and puff that these folks are just self-evidently radical right-wingers who shove their little Nazi party pins inside their shirt pockets on the way to the rally, but how much of that is trying to drive a wedge between on the one hand a movement that 34% of her population expresses some degree of sympathy with, and on the other AfD, a nascent fourth party which has put down roots to the right of the CDU/CSU tired-out, anything-to-remain-power coalition?  A couple of years ago The Economist ran a pretty lengthy article on Merkel, and observed that her principal trait was a willingness to embrace the opposition’s position, to under-sell it, so to speak.  That’s just a very polite way of pointing out that you’ll do or say anything just to stay in office.  Nowadays, when the lamestream media no longer controls the discussion, eventually voters will figure you out.  It’s why RINOs in America are so contemptuous of the Tea Party:  These people actually stand for something and are willing to act on their convictions.

Of course, the inability to show that PEGIDA actually means something different from what its says doesn’t stop the professional hand-wringing class from claiming exactly that.  Case in point:  An article in today’s FAZ, “What the Demonstrators of PEGIDA Actually Want“.  Well.  Jolly good thing we’ve got this author to explain it all to us; we might have been fool enough to read PEGIDA’s position paper.  And what do they “actually want”?

“Obviously” they “fear foreigners whom they scarcely know.”  Funny, I’ve not heard that PEGIDA is campaigning against immigration from China, or South America, or even Eastern Europe; as near as I can tell they’re against further infiltration by specifically Islamic foreigners, and against further expansion of the power of Islamic residents over the coduct of society in Germany.  The common element is not place of origin, but rather a specific, aggressive, violent religion (kind of like they say in their position paper, you know).  “Islamization” means they’re afraid that the “culture could so alter itself, that one would feel as if he lived in an Islamic state.”  And then, in what American readers of, e.g., the NYT, will readily recognize as opinion-masquerading-as-reportage, we have the “many think” sleight-of-hand.  “Many think,” this author tells us, that the PEGIDA demonstrators fear “many other things,” and not just Islamization.  Like “losing their job” (the hoary stand-by of the left: you don’t have principles; you’re just in it for the money), or “that one day their pension will be too low” (ditto), or that their money will evaporate and their savings won’t be enough (gee, wonder why in Germany of all places the fear of inflation finds resonance; otherwise: ditto (the link, by the way, is to a picture of a five-billion Mark — RM5,000,000,000 — . . . postage stamp)).  The people in the former DDR have already experienced how, with the collapse of their worker’s and peasant’s paradise, their “conditions of life” can be “completely altered”; “perhaps” they’re just “scared of further change.”

Scared of further change:  The ultimate weasel accusation.  Sort of like Britain was “scared of further change” when it guaranteed Poland’s borders against . . . well . . . against the Germans.  Or like the abolitionists after 1850 were “scared of further change,” like the “change” that the new fugitive slave law was actually going to be enforced, and the slave power was actually entering an aggressively expansionist phase.  Or that the American colonists in the early 1770s were “scared of further change” that the king and Parliament were going to reduce them to vassalage after 150-odd years of letting them by and large run themselves.

But what “further change” might the PEGIDA folks be “scared of”?  Well, like getting your ass shot up by someone shouting Allahu akhbar! because he didn’t like a joke you told.  Or entire suburbs of your national capital being places where it’s just not safe for your own police and firefighters to go, because they’re attacked by Islamic thugs.  Or gangs of Pakistani men gang-raping over 1,400 little girls over the course of 18 or so years.  Or soldiers of your own country being slaughtered in broad daylight because . . . well, because Allah is great (or at least real swell).  Or “honor killings” where teenage girls have their throats slit because daddy doesn’t approve of their boyfriend.  Or entire segments of the population checking out of the law, establishing their own religious courts to mete out sharia justice.  Or competing groups of religiously-motivated thugs fighting it out on the streets of your own cities.  Or having to wonder, every time you get on a train, whether someone’s going to blow it sky-high for the greater glory of a 7th Century pederast.  And so forth.

That fat-headed German Interior Minister deserves to be on the next train that gets blown up.  What happened in Paris this past week has everything, every-damned-thing in the world, to do with Islam as such.  As that el-Sisi boy in Egypt said in exactly so many words (words which the Western press is studiously ignoring):

“Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible! . . . All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.  I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.”

I’m certainly not going to put myself out there as carrying the water for PEGIDA or anyone else.  They may turn out to be dupes or worse.  But to point out that Islamization of the Western world is an aggressively pursued policy that has absolutely nothing — nothing at all — good to offer us, and that open-door immigration from those areas of the world whose societies are not merely not-“geprägt” by Judeo-Christian values, but actively and violently opposed to them, is nothing that can end well?  Until someone can show me that the imams to whom el-Sisi was speaking actually get out there and demonstrate, by book, chapter, and verse, that all these criminals in Islamized Europe in fact have it wrong . . . well, until then I think PEGIDA’s got the better argument.

President Wilhelm II

Recently I’ve been re-reading Lamar Cecil’s highly enjoyable two-volume biography of Kaiser Wilhelm II. I picked up the complete biography shortly after the final volume came out in 1996 and have read it through a few times since.  Vol. I runs from his birth through 1900, and Vol. II takes him up through his death in 1941 a few days before Germany invaded the Soviet Union.

[Aside: I cannot fathom people who cannot understand re-reading a book. I’ve yet to meet anyone – and certainly I myself am not such – who is so perceptive that he picks up every last detail, every nuance, every interpretive shading, every careless conclusion, every challenge to his established thinking, on the first read-through. Just as you can never set foot in the same stream twice, because the water continuously flows and your second step is in different water, so you can never read a book as the same person twice. I would have first read Wilhelm II five or so years before my oldest child was born. I can tell you to a certainty that today I read the chapters on his troubled relationship with his parents, Uncle Bertie, and Granny Victoria through eyes that are substantively different than the eyes which first read those books. Similarly I have since 1996 read no small number of other books treating of the same times, personalities, and events. I think I would be fool indeed if nothing of what I have learned and seen and thought in the interval provided any deeper color, or more helpful perspective, on Wilhelm.]

At the risk of a plot-spoiler, Cecil’s summing-up comes down to this, in the final paragraph of Vol. II:

“What debts do Germans of today owe to their last kaiser? * * * Unhappily, there are none. It would seem that the last of the kaisers deserves, for his own time and place in history, the brutal envoi that the Duke of Wellington paid to King George IV, an inglorious king who had ruled England long before his kinsman Wilhelm was born. He was a sovereign, the Iron Duke regretfully concluded, who lived and died without having been able to assert so much as a single claim on the gratitude of posterity.”

In his preface Cecil observes that he’s spent some 30 years with Wilhelm; presumably that condemnation is the fruit of all those years’ acquaintance.

Wilhelm still fascinates, though. Seldom has a ruler come to a throne with such enormous capital in goodwill, youth, energy, and native intelligence. Seldom has a ruler come to a throne to rule over a people offering the scope of potential which late 19th Century Germany offered. Seldom has a ruler with such a people and such resources hit an historical sweet spot so squarely as Wilhelm II did. The Imperial Germany of 1889 to the crown of which Wilhelm succeeded was incontestably the most vibrant, most powerful nation in the most vigorous, prosperous, admired continent in the world.  To borrow a naval metaphor, Germany was hurtling down the catapult, afterburners fully lit off, and with nothing but clear sky off the bow and above.  By a freak of pathology — his father’s cancer — Wilhelm was able to hop into the cockpit and strap in before it cleared the flight deck.

As headily as Germany was advancing in 1889, in terms of learning, industry, the sciences, the arts, and general human advancement, the Germany of 1889 was just getting started. Britain, getting first off the mark of industrialization in the late 1700s, had hit and was beginning to pass her peak by then. France never would really get there. Italy, Spain, Russia, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire were decrepit, mis-ruled societies still mired in centuries’ worth of inertia, corruption, and political stasis. The Netherlands and Belgium were making the run, but they were tiny, their influence on the larger course of the world negligible. Only Britain with her titanic empire and her absolute mastery of the seas which bound it together could seriously dispute Germany’s rise had she chosen.  She did not choose to; German merchants were winning ever-greater market share wherever they went . . . and thanks to a merchant marine that was expanding exponentially, they went wherever they pleased, the Royal Navy bearing the burden of protecting their trade as well. The United States, still hobbled by the lingering effects of the Panic of 1873 and with an entire region of the country – the South – still devastated from the Civil War, was only slowing beginning to see its way to becoming the behemoth it did. Think not? In 1889, American trains rolled on seamless tires manufactured in Essen by Krupp.

Had Wilhelm had the vision and strength of character to seize his world-historical opportunity – to repeat: the confluence of favorable circumstances at his accession was nearly unique in all history – even today the Wilhelmine Era might be looked back upon as not a gilded (as that time in the U.S. has become known) but a Golden Age.

And Wilhelm pissed it away. All of it. All the way down to his very throne itself. Not only did he wreck his army, the beautiful army to which he addressed his very first message as kaiser, but by the end of the war hundreds of thousands of civilians had been starved to death by the punishing blockade imposed by the Royal Navy.  That would be the same navy which at one time had benignly stood guard over the trade routes German merchants followed to bring untold wealth back home. Wilhelm put to plow, disked, raked, and fertilized the soil from which Hitler’s monstrosities grew. In 1914 Germany was the most over-educated, flourishing society in Europe, and in fact in most of the world. It was well on the way towards the society which, by the time Hitler came along, held more Nobel prizes in the sciences than everyone else put together.  In terms of the acid question of how ordinary people lived, only certain regions of the United States even came close to it (and in what is called the Life of the Mind, America had adopted entire chunks of the German Way of Doing Things, such as its university system; large portion of the “Progressive” creed sweeping the nation in the hand of people like T. Roosevelt and Wilson had similarly been taken over wholesale from German political thought). If Serious Learning can in fact be a safeguard against the societal expression of the darkest of human nature, then in Germany if anywhere that proposition should have held. But it wasn’t even fifteen years since Wilhelm slipped over the border into the Netherlands that Germans went to the polls and elected the Nazis, and only eighteen years and six months – just barely enough time for a child to be born and grow to majority age – between August, 1914 and January 30, 1933. Talk about “fundamental transformation.”

As repeatedly observed and illustrated by Cecil, the defective monarch who presided over this wastage of human potential was someone who had been told all his life long how clever he was, how infallible his judgments, how extraordinary, how central to a world-historical phenomenon he was. He surrounded himself with sycophants and charlatans, people whose sole function was to breathe reassurance into his ears, who shielded him from all information which might disturb his self-image of a figure of massive importance, keen insight, and unlimited talents. He kept these playthings about him until he tired of them or their presence became awkward to him or they failed somehow to live up (down?) to his standard of boot-licking, at which time they were cast aside with nary a further thought. No matter what he mucked up, it was always someone else’s fault – the Jews, Lord Salisbury, his Uncle Bertie (later Edward VII), the Catholics, or his servants who were just insufficiently loyal to the Hohenzollern crown and its cosmic destiny.

He fancied himself august beyond approach, the arbiter of sophistication, taste, and learning. In fact his intelligence, which was not mean at all (even those who fully appreciated his character flaws confessed themselves very impressed by the speed with which he could grasp issues and by his phenomenal memory, the latter a trait he shared with his grandmother), was nonetheless dilettantish, spanning a broad range but very, very little if anything penetrated to any depth. His judgments were snap and superficial, usually formed in terms of how an external stimulus had affected or reflected on him, and how his response to it would emphasize or might diminish his importance and dominance. He scrupulously screened those whom he permitted into his court for pedigree and function. If you weren’t of ancient nobility, or among the very highest governmental officials, or a military officer, then by and large you were simply not hoffähig (presentable). Of course, at his disportments – and he spent a phenomenal amount of time on vacation, hunting in the fall and winter, sailing in the summer, and betwixt and between flitting about the place, inviting himself to his fellow sovereigns and his wealthier nobles – you were perfectly fine as long as you were filthy rich enough. It was on the water, for example, that he hung out with American (and a few English) plutocrats. The Krupps, Thyssens, Stumms, Henckels, and so forth were very much to his taste – outside Berlin. And to repeat: He spent as little time in Berlin as he could get away with doing.  Everyone who ever knew him, from his childhood on, remarked at how little work he was willing to do, how little the hard work of mastering the governing process interested him, how willingly he cast his duties aside to play dress-up soldier.

Through it all, he never, ever learned. Anything. Even at Doorn, as a lonely, bitter old man, he was convinced that he had been right all along, that it was them, all those other people, who had ruined him.

And then it hit me: Our current Dear Leader is neither more nor less than Wilhelm II transcribed for 21st Century America, like Bach’s setting Vivaldi’s A minor violin concerto for organ (except instead of a masterpiece Dear Leader’s delivered up an excrescence). He’s spent his entire life being told how wonderfully clever he is, how infallible his judgments are, how destined (dare we say it? predestined) he is to play a fundamentally transformative role not only in his own country but on a world stage. Wilhelm’s acknowledged intelligence somehow never produced any noteworthy scholarly or mental achievement; we’ve been assured for seven years now how Dear Leader is just so brilliant that governing us contemptible roobs just bores him to death . . . and yet we have yet to see so much as an elementary school report card by way of actual documentation. Dear Leader’s books apparently were ghost-written; so were Wilhelm’s. Like the kaiser, Dear Leader too surrounds himself with groveling, fawning, truckling courtiers who vie for his attention by finding amusements for him and singing hosannas of praise of him, to him.  And like the Kaiser, Dear Leader is notorious for throwing his people under the bus, as soon as it becomes expedient to do so.

Dear Leader, like Wilhelm, fancies himself a consummate diplomat and statesman; like Wilhelm, his peers the world over view him with a mixture of pity and contempt, and more or less with impunity defy his wishes. Wilhelm could seldom utter six sentences in a row without telling an outright fable or offending someone who meant him well. Dear Leader, when prized away from his Telepromptr, is renowned for his ability to say the wrong thing, at the wrong time, to the wrong people. When Wilhelm let his guard down, as in the Daily Telegraph interview, out came gushing a torrent of falsehood, confusion, illogic, petulance, and self-pity.  When Dear Leader gets off-script and speaks his mind, we get treated to . . . well, to the same bizarre mixture of lies about himself and his actions, self-pity that no one will do as he instructs, and glimpses into an understanding of the world which conforms to exactly no observable data at all.  No one, absolutely no one with anything more than bare walking-around sense, believes a word coming from Dear Leader’s pie-hole, exactly as Wilhelm’s bloviating was treated by his contemporaries both within German government and abroad.

Wilhelm’s capacity for empty rhetoric and bombast (remember it was the dear ol’ kaiser who exhorted his troops to behave like Huns when he sent them to China to suppress the Boxers; how’d that work out for you, sport?) was limitless. In our own time we have a candidate for office the mere nomination of whom by his party causes the planet to cool and the seas to recede (paging King Cnut! King Cnut!!), “red lines” that suddenly aren’t, high-flown gobbledy-gook about post-partisan healing matched with relentless race- and class-baiting, ceaseless tripe about the “one percent” all while siphoning hundreds of millions of dollars from precisely the plutocrats about whom he gasses on to us, and on whose Martha’s Vineyard estates he relaxes from his next-most-recent vacation.

Speaking of which, like Wilhelm, Dear Leader views his time at his government desk as so much tedium between vacations.  Like the kaiser, our latter-day Wilhelm always, always travels in high state, with fleets of flunkeys, retainers, and of course boorish-but-wealthy louts and hangers-on to lend a tinselly air of glamor to it all.

Wilhelm by virtue of having been born to his throne knew nearly nothing of the country he was destined to rule, and in fact even managed to avoid learning anything during his brief time in school and at the university. Dear Leader, born (according to his own statements made over the course of decades) abroad and raised in luxury in the fairy-tale atmosphere of Hawaii, makes a point of flaunting his ignorance of us little people out in fly-over country, commiserating with His People about how stupid we are in our clinging to our God and our guns.

Most striking of all is the absolute, immune-to-all-data conviction observable in both Wilhelm and Dear Leader of their own sublime magnificence, their all-encompassing infallibility in everything on which they choose to bestow the grace of their attention. Kool Aid didn’t exist in Wilhelmine Germany, but if it had, the kaiser would have drained his own pitcher, repeatedly and with a smirk on his face. And no one in modern American life appears more eager to believe his own bullshit than Dear Leader.

I could go on. Of course no historical parallel is ever perfect, and that’s no less true in the comparison of Wilhelm II and Dear Leader. But Jesus Christ and General Jackson! the resemblance is strong, disturbingly strong.

There is, of course, one significant point of distinction between the two:  Wilhelm actually desired the prosperity and security of his country; however boorish he might have been about it, he was unapologetically German.  Dear Leader is, at his warmest, profoundly ambivalent about the United States, and from everything he has said or done, both before taking office and since, genuinely believes that the world would be a better place with a less-powerful, less-prosperous, less-imitated America.

Wilhelm found a flourishing garden and left it a charnel house the toxins of which leach into the air and water of world society to this day. Where will we find ourselves, fifteen years after Dear Leader departs?

All Your Children are Belong to Us — Or Not?

Some months ago I wrote about a family in Germany, the Wunderlichs, who wanted to, and for a time did, home-school their children.

For their troubles, a group of 20 police officers and sundry official hand-wringers descended on their home in a suburb of Darmstadt in the early morning hours of August 29, 2013.  They’d brought a battering ram with them.  Did I mention that the Wunderlichs are both gardeners by trade?  Not weapons smugglers, domestic terrorists, nor even <sharp intake of breath> Tea Partiers.  Fortunately for all concerned, Mr. Wunderlich opened the door, and so the SWAT-style equipment wasn’t deployed.

Their children were taken away from them, physically for three weeks (the parents were allowed one visit, on their youngest child’s birthday), and only returned upon their undertaking to send them to a “regular” school.  But the courts stripped them of the legal authority to made educational decisions for their children, to select where they lived with the children, and in fact of just about every right or power over them except to provide them with housing, clothing, and food.

I linked both the original German court ruling and the HSLDA’s translation of it.  I won’t plow that field again, but suffice it to say that the court’s reasoning was deeply disturbing in its implications.

This week the Oberlandesgericht in Frankfurt am Main (there’s actually another Frankfurt, way out east, on the Oder River) reversed the lower court decision, at least as to the children’s custody, granting the parents full custody and decisional authority over their children.  Here’s a report from a local paper (unfortunately it’s in German); here’s a write-up over at the HSLDA.

While they’re doubtless relieved once again to be recognized by the eye of the law, as well as that of their God (their home-schooling the children is based ultimately on their religious convictions), to be lawfully charged with their children’s up-bringing, the Wunderlichs are in legal limbo now.  The OLG ruled that depriving them of custody was “disproportionate” to their offense, but specifically pointed out that they’re subject to the criminal laws on the subject.  Fines and/or up to six months in jail are the tariff in that respect, it seems.

While not as disturbing as the administrative court, the OLG’s reasoning, at least as reported (I’ve looked for a link to the actual decision but haven’t able to locate it yet) is still unsettling.  The court reiterated the official line that home-schooling represents “endangerment” to the children’s welfare.  Well, why?  It’s not because the children are stupid or uneducated or maladjusted, because they’re not.  In fact the newspaper report describes the court’s characterization of their educational level as “high.”  Likewise their “social competency” does not appear limited.  But if not those, then what else?  Well, the court pointed out that mere transmission of knowledge is not the full function of the school.  Rather, attending a regular school serves the function of affording the children “the opportunity to grow into the community’s life.”  In other words, it’s a danger to the children because they might not grow up like us.

As I pointed out when I first posted on this story, to lay universal claim to the integration of children into a specific societal system through the mechanism of compulsory attendance in government-run schools is neither more nor less than the same claim, on the same basis, as that made by the fascists and the communists.  I hypothesized (because he didn’t live long enough to marry) the children of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and whether he would have been justified in home-schooling them to keep them out of the clutches of the national socialist school system.

I think my assertion on that point was correct then, and I’ll re-state it:  You must permit families like the Wunderlichs because you dare not forbid families like the hypothetical Bonhoeffers.

 

Maybe I Need to Re-Think my Position

A couple of years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court over-turned a death sentence.  If my memory is correct (and I can’t say with certainty that it is, because I don’t follow such things very closely and in any event I’ve slept since then), the perp had committed a murder for which he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death.  Given how hard it is to be sentenced to death, it must have been a genuinely horrible crime.  Here was the kicker:  He had been a minor when he committed the crime.  He was tried as an adult.  As I recall, the court had no problem with the decision to try him as an adult, or with the conviction itself.  But it reversed the imposition of the death penalty on (and you’re really taxing my feeble mind now) 8th Amendment grounds, or maybe it was 14th Amendment grounds.  Whatever.  There was a good deal of outrage at the time because the majority opinion specifically rested not so much on American principles of justice and notions of constitutionally permissible state action, but on supposedly international notions of “justice” and what the rest of the world allegedly might think about it.

Back in the 1950s, Chief Justice Earl Warren — a fathead by any reasonable standard — claimed for the court the status of seers, and further effectively ruled that the court’s fevered imaginings had the force of constitutional law.  In Trop v. Dulles, 78 S.Ct. 590, an army private who deserted his unit, in wartime, had been court-martialed and convicted and had been, as prescribed by Act of Congress then in force, deprived of his U.S. citizenship, applied for a passport, which was denied on the basis that he was not a U.S. citizen.  He alleged that denationalization was a “cruel and unusual punishment” proscribed by the 8th Amendment.  Warren agreed.  “The Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”  No.  Seriously.  This kind of claptrap passes for constitutional jurisprudence in some quarters.

So it is now with reference to some mystic chords of memory (to borrow one from Lincoln’s First Inaugural) running from the Supreme Court, not to whoever the hell it is in the American polity who determines what is “decency” and how its “standards” “evolve” over time and in which direction (remember that’s very much a two-way street; there was once a time in Germany when trucking millions off to be summarily executed by reason of where they went to church would have been stoutly rejected), but rather to those folks’ international counterparts that we are to derive the extent of our constitution’s mandates and proscriptions.  Color me chauvinistic, but I’m just not sure that’s a real sound idea.  I mean, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, in large areas of the world it’s considered well within the boundaries not only of “decency” but “honor” as well to slit your teenage daughter’s throat because you disapprove of her boyfriend.  In India these days it sure seems to be within standards of public decency to gang-rape not only the local women but tourists as well.  I defy those black-dressed boobs on that bench to articulate for me a morally defensible, logically delimited algorithm for deciding just which standards of international “decency” and notions of “justice” should be engrafted onto a constitutional system that’s done just fine without them for over 200 years, and which we ought to leave be.

On the other hand . . . .  There generally is an other hand, isn’t there?

From 2010 to early 2012, the president of Germany was a chap named Christian Wulff.  He resigned in February of that year in the face of criminal charges of corruption stemming from his days in the government of Niedersaschsen (Lower Saxony).  Without boring Gentle Reader with details, it was a long, drawn-out affair only slightly less salacious than the investigation and impeachment proceedings against Clinton.  They actually took Wulff all the way to trial, earlier this year.  He was acquitted by a jury.

Now a formal request has been made to initiate criminal and disciplinary proceedings against the prosecutors.  The accusations fall into two groups.  The first relates to the relentless pursuit of Wulff himself, with numerous examinations of witnesses, searches, and ever-new, and uniformly irrelevant, avenues of inquiry opening up and being pursued doggedly to their dead-ends.  A large amount of what the prosecutors dredged, plowed, and (see below) leaked, it is alleged, really had nothing at all to do with what Wulff was accused of having done.  Here in America we would call that malicious prosecution, or abuse of process, or most colloquially, “Easter-egging” or “witch hunt.”  The purpose of this ever-expanding dragnet was, according to this accuser, not the illumination of public corruption but the keeping alive of the investigation for its own (political) sake.

The second group of accusations relate to the usual leaking of sensitive personal information, none of it germane to whether Wulff was or was not guilty of public corruption, but the intent and effect of which was personal and political embarrassment.

In short, the German prosecutors are accused of what American prosecutors routinely do.  Only this time, if the justice minister of Lower Saxony bites, the hunter may become the hunted.

Absolute immunity for prosecutorial abuse is a purely judge-made doctrine (did we mention how many judges are former prosecutors?).  It has no foundation in statute or constitutional law.  It has no basis in simple logic.  The dynamics of over-indictment, succinctly described in The Blogfather’s wonderful and highly readable article “Ham Sandwich Nation,” 113 Colum. L. Rev. 102 (2013), is just the tip of the iceberg.  The distressing fact is that a prosecutor who decides to ruin someone’s life either for personal or political reasons is nearly impossible to bring to book.  For every Michael Nifong (he of the Duke lacrosse-rape abomination) there are scores if not hundreds of prosecutors who use highly politicized and publicized prosecutions as nothing more than rungs on their ladders of advancement.  It is all too easy to end up bankrupt, unemployable, one’s family ruined, and generally a social pariah without even getting to a trial, much less being convicted, and with no recourse at all against the person for whom you were nothing more than a canvas on which to paint his “tough on crime” slogan.

Lest one think that this sort of thing just does not happen, I refer Gentle Reader to the story of what FDR’s Internal Revenue Service did to Andrew Mellon, who had been Hoover’s Secretary of the Treasury.  The whole sordid story is told in Amity Shlaes’s The Forgotten Man, which I’ve already linked to a number of times, but which deserves to be read very carefully.

So it will be interesting to see whether these prosecutors in Germany have to answer, personally, for their misbehavior.  If so, then perhaps this precedent will be useful in arguing for some of them evolving international standards of decency to be imported into American law.

Don’t Mention the War

That used to be what Americans and Britons were advised in post-1950s Germany.  Especially the decades during which one was likely to meet, socially or professionally, or just out and about, Germans of a certain age who, as Paul Fussell observed while teaching at Heidelberg for a year, were strangely silent about just what they’d been doing from . . . oh, say . . . 1938-45.

As that generation dies out [n.B.  What might turn out to be one of the last Nazi war criminals — a former guard at Auschwitz and Buchenwald — has been arrested in Philadelphia and is being deported back to Germany to stand trial.] it appears that there are still things you cannot mention in Germany.

Things like where immigrant criminals come from.  From the FAZ we have this report.  A woman “from an immigrant family,” but who is a German citizen, is raped.  She knew her attacker (a German), although they apparently had no connection (specifically, no prior or current romantic connection) otherwise.  She reported the crime and an arrest warrant issued.  The perp hoofed it.  Yesterday four men, two from her family and two Germans, found him in a parking lot near the French border.  They beat him to death (and good for them, I have to say).  [Update (20 Jun 14):  It appears that it was the woman’s 17-year-old brother, and he stabbed the perp to death . . . 23 stab wounds.]  All four have now been arrested.

Nowhere in the article do they mention where this woman’s family came from.  [Update (20 Jun 14):  This article corrects the oversight; she came from Lebanon.]

I’ve posted earlier here about the concerns in Germany about the rise and dynamics of a parallel justice system among immigrants of specific groups, specifically groups which just happen to follow the Religion of Peace.  There’s all this hand-wringing about “parallel justice” among certain specific groups, and yet when instances of it occur, it’s as if there’s no connection at all.  Silence.  It’s as if the entire German media industry is experiencing the Butterfield Effect.

Don’t mention the war.  Don’t mention where they’re from.

[Update (20 Jun 14):  With today’s article in the FAZ, linked above, it appears that this post is largely mooted.  One interesting thing mentioned in the article is that the woman’s family appears to have lured the perp, whom the police somehow couldn’t find, to the parking lot where they killed him.  They got a buddy to arrange a bogus drug deal, using unspecified social media.  The article also mentions that the police didn’t bother with a wire tap, didn’t put out a BOLO, and weren’t themselves monitoring the perp’s social media — although the article specifically recites that they could have.  The woman’s brother — and good for him, allow me to repeat — got understandably pissed that the police were dragging their feet.  So he did their job for them.  It’s a shame that he’ll be tried there, and not here, because if I were defending him I think I’d go with justifiable homicide as a defense.  And I bet most juries around here would agree.]

From the Department of be Careful What You Wish For

A couple of years ago, swarms of people with some truly confused understandings about law, economics, politics, and basic human nature decided it was time to go for a camp-out.  In downtown New York City.  Yes, we refer Gentle Reader to recollections of those days of THC-laden fumes, bull-horns, vandalism, sexual assault, attempted terrorist bombings, bodily functions and sweat, and sordid ordinary greed that called itself the Occupy Wall Street movement.  In the weeks and months after their initial attempted colonization of the city’s financial district, they spawned numerous copy-cat “occupations” in other cities around the world.

For those still interested (both of you), they’re still around, and even have a website and everything.  It’s here.  To get a true flavor of what passes for thinking over there, Gentle Reader can click on the “Action” tab on the banner and then go around the pinwheel chart on the page.  I looked for a “blow up bridges” link in the “tactics” portion of the wheel, but didn’t find one.

Let’s ignore the movement depositing its money into Amalgamated Bank, which as of fall, 2011 was controlled by an SEIU affiliate and was circling the toilet bowl operating under an FDIC consent order, largely as the result of having invested $800 million in Countrywide Home Loans mortgages.  You’ll remember Countrywide, won’t you, Gentle Reader?  Countrywide was by a wide margin the leading private originator of subprime home loans — loans to people who had little likelihood of being able to repay them.  Loans that are now characterized as exploitative and conclusive evidence of the “1%” plundering The Working Man.  And shit.  Seems the SEIU was just jim-dandy getting in on a slice of that plunder, and the Occupyistas were happy to send them their business.  By the way, Amalgamated was rescued by the sale of roughly 40% of its shares to Ron Burkle (billionaire and Big Time Democrat) and Wilbur Ross (another billionaire, although he backed Romney in 2012).  Amalgamated became the Democrat National Committee’s sole lender in 2012.  And so on and so forth.  In short, business is business, even for outfits whose stated mission is “world revolution.”

At the risk of understatement, the Occupy loonies having served their purpose of re-electing America’s first explicitly anti-American president, they’re about as relevant today as the Wobblies.  So why am I devoting bandwidth to them?

Because today is June 17, after all.

On June 17, 1953, in the Worker’s and Peasant’s Paradise, more formally known as the Deutsche Demokratische Republik — the German Democratic Republic: East Germany in round numbers — and more informally among West Germans of a certain generation as the Sowjetische Besatzungszone or the SBZ — the “Soviet Occupation Zone” — the rest of the world got to see how movements like the Occupy Wall Street outfit get treated post-revolution.  The preceding day in East Berlin construction workers had finally had enough of the privations, oppressions, and exactions of Sovietization.  As happens with dreary predictability, the government had announced forthcoming increases in “work norms” with no corresponding increase in pay.  Work more, same income.  So on June 16, they went on strike.  The next day they were joined by other groups of workers.  For 1953 in still-devastated Central Europe, news of the goings-on spread amazingly rapidly throughout most of East Germany.

On the morning of June 17, the workers began to march towards downtown East Berlin.  The government pretty quickly decided to use force to deal with the protests and, the times being what they were, they turned to their Soviet occupiers for help.  Roughly 20,000 troops and 8,000 police, complete with tanks and so forth, turned out, and the fun began.  The total numbers of killed and wounded is somewhat vague, as are all numbers of victims of communist oppressions.  When you add in the subsequent executions it appears to have been north of 500.

From the 1950s until actual German reunification, June 17 was the Tag der deutschen Einheit — Day of German Unity.  Beginning in 1990 the newly-reunified country moved it to October 3 (the formal Reunification Day, instead of November 9, the day the Wall fell . . . too many unfortunate associations with that day (e.g., Kristallnacht)).  A principal consequence of the June 17 Uprising and its brutal suppression was to heighten the exodus of every East German who had the gumption, prompting the 1961 construction of the Berlin Wall.

I’ll make a humble suggestion, for the benefit of those three or four dozen remaining true believer Occupiers.  I think they need their very own holiday.  I think they need a holiday that will serve as their inspiration to World Revolution, and provide them a glimpse of their Paradise on Earth.

We’ll have it on June 17 (now that day’s free of prior claims), and we can call it Fools and Tools Day.

Harrison Bergeron, Call Home

In this morning’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung there’s an article on the educational practice once (and perhaps still) referred to here as “mainstreaming.”  The title pretty much says it all:  “Inclusion: the Great Illusion”.

This is the basic outline of the story.  Up until 2009, when Germany signed the UN Convention on Human Rights, “special needs” children (as if there has ever been a child that did not have special needs; show me a child who requires absolutely nothing out of the ordinary — in any respect or for any reason — and I’ll show you a freak of nature) were sent to schools with other children like them, where there were teachers trained to deal with their sundry problems and where the staffing levels were sufficient to handle them, both pedagogically and physically.  And where there were not other students desperately trying to take advantage of their few years of schooling to escape the traps of a world in which cognitive ability and credentialing are becoming ever more make-or-break for all segments of society.

Under the UN convention, however, schools are obliged, upon unilateral decision by the “special needs” child’s parent(s), to place that child in a regular classroom.  In a classroom with a teacher who’s been trained to teach, for example, medieval history, as opposed to how to handle a severely autistic child.  Mind you, the parents don’t have to choose to put their child into a regular class, and in truth many of them don’t want to.  They’ve seen their children, we have to presume, struggle with things that come naturally or much more easily to their peers, and how frustrating, humiliating, and self-perpetuating the cycle of always-coming-up-short can be.  I will say that the closer a child gets to “normal,” (however you choose to think of that notion) the harder the choice can be.  You are morally convinced — you will go to your grave convinced — your child is capable of better things than he’s achieved thus far.  You know that if he’s not put with “normal” children then he will not have a chance to learn from them, and of course you realize that children learn a tremendous amount from each other, even in terms just of the academic material, to say nothing of the social skills your child will need to survive as an adult on his own.  You have this feeling in your bones that if your child is put on the “special needs” track then it will be a permanent, irrevocable sentence of mediocrity.  You’ll do anything not to see your child, whose talents and “special” needs you get to see in the smallest detail, daily, forever doomed to be something less than he has in him.  If it sounds as though I speak from some experience here, there is a reason for that.

And the law’s response to the schools who point out that this child is not only not getting anything out of being in a “regular” class, but rather is doing little more than destroying the educational opportunity of the 90% of his fellow students who aren’t so handicapped, is: screw you, buddy; deal with it.  Isn’t that special?  A bunch of lawyers, politicians, and “human rights” activists have decided how schools must function.

Predictably, it’s playing merry hell with the German school system, one of that country’s prides and joys.  For those who don’t keep up with these things, for generations the German schools have been divided, tracked, or whatever.  After a period of basic education (“Grundschule”), the children are divided into three groups.  Those whose abilities suggest they’re not going to need a bunch of schooling beyond the basics, for example manual laborers, low-level clerical, or industrial workers, are placed in the “Hauptschule,” which terminates after ninth grade or so, after which they will typically be placed into a commercial or industrial apprenticeship program and, with a bit of luck and a following wind, embark from there upon a career for which their academic and technical education has fully suited them.  The next level up, for those who are going to become technical workers, mid-level bureaucrats or officials, and so forth, such as dental or physicians’ assistants, for example, is the “Realschule,” which goes (I’m working from memory here, so don’t tax me with inaccuracies) until 11th or 12th, after which they too will head for such additional vocational education or training as may be appropriate to their desires and abilities.  The top level, the “Gymnasium,” runs through a 13th year.  The last two years the student selects two subjects, “Hauptfächer,” for concentration.  Back when I attended a Gymnasium in the early 1980s, my 11th grade class was taking English, French, German, mathematics (calculus), history, chemistry, physics, phys. ed., geography, biology, and religion (either Catholic or Protestant, according to the parents’ choice).  By the time you get out of Gymnasium your level of academic attainment is going to put you very close to what the best American universities produce by the junior year.

For several decades there has been a fourth track, the “Gesamtschule,” in which the children are not segregated by academic ability but rather just lumped in together, much like an American high school.  The Gesamtschulen have never really won the respect of German society.

But there’s a further wrinkle.  You don’t finish up your Gymnasium career by passing your classes and tottering across a stage to get a piece of paper to go in the bottom of a drawer in your parents’ living room.  At least not if you have ambitions of further schooling, either at one of Germany’s universities or their “Technische Hochschulen,” the latter of which produce the German engineers who have established “Made in Germany” as the quasi-gold standard of excellence enjoyed for generations now by that country’s products.  No:  After completing your 13th year, and successfully passing all your classes, you get to sit for a battery of written and oral examinations known as the “Abitur.”  A perfect score is 1.0; it runs down to 5.0, which is failing.  There are no do-overs, like with the SAT or ACT.  You have precisely one chance to do as well as you can.

And this is where the rubber meets the road.  The Abitur is given at the state level, meaning every graduate in Bavaria who chose, for example, math and physics as Hauptfächer is going to be taking the same examination.  Additionally, there is a great deal of standardization across states, with the specific end in mind that if you pull a 1.7 on your Abitur in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, that should be sufficient indication of pretty much precisely the same performance as a 1.7 coming out of Bremen or Hessen.  And the purpose of that, Best Beloved, is because there is tremendous competition for slots in the most sought-after fields at the top universities.  Some fields, such as law and medicine, are even the subject of a “numerus clausus,” a closed number.  I don’t know what it is now, but back in the mid-1980s, when I was studying at the University of Freiburg, the number for medicine was something like 1.2.  In other words, if you pulled a 1.3 you weren’t going to be a doctor.  Period.

The competition doesn’t stop there, either.  A few years ago Germany realized that it could have a passel of pretty good universities, with none really of world-class rank, or it could devote increased resources to those universities which were nearly world-class, in order to get them there and keep them there, and let the others make shift.  School snobbery made me pleased to note that Freiburg made the cut.  I don’t know whether the Technische Hochschulen underwent the same triage, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

The opening paragraphs in the FAZ piece are about a child (name changed, of course), whose “special” needs include not only cognitive but social-emotional development.  His behavior in class is described.  Such as climbing over desks and chairs, beating on his schoolmates to the point of bruises, spitting pieces of paper he’s chewed up, pouring out a bottle of apple juice on his desk, then running around the classroom, smearing his classmates with it.  The teacher is at his wits’ end; he was trained to teach, not to cope with a semi-savage (I know that characterization is brutal, but there’s no other way to describe a child who behaves like that, for whatever the reason may be).

Now there is a family in Baden-Württemberg whose Down-syndrome child they wish to send to the Gymnasium.  Understand that for non-“special” needs children it’s the teachers who make the go/no-go decision on which children are eligible for the Gymnasium.  For “special” needs children, the parents have, apparently, an absolute right of determination.  And this child’s parents are determined that he will attend the Gymnasium, even though they concede he has no expectation at all of completing his Abitur.  He can’t even read properly.  But, according to his parents, “all his friends” are going to the Gymnasium, so by God he’s going as well.  [As an aside, it speaks well for his Gymnasium-bound friends that they are friends of this child.]  Thus far the Gymnasium, which understandably does not wish to become a special-educational institution, has successfully resisted.  If the law is as explained in the article, though, that won’t go on.

The article quotes the cost of maintaining parallel special-education schools for children who need them, and at the same time hiring on sufficient trained staff to accommodate the “special” needs children whose parents decide screw ’em all, Little Heinz is going to the Realschule notwithstanding he can barely sign his name and physically cannot sit still for more than seven minutes without climbing — literally — over the furniture.  They’d need 9,300 extra teachers and handlers, at a cost of €660,000,000 per year, just in the “normal” schools.  If you keep the special-education schools open as well (remember that three-quarters of all “special” needs children in Germany are not being mainstreamed by their parents), the annual cost balloons to €3.3 billion.  With a graying population and looming social welfare outlays, the money simply is not there.

But more to the point, what if it were there?  Those children in that Down-syndrome child’s classes are going to be held back in their own academic progress.  The article quotes two teachers, one from Bavaria and one from Lower Saxony, and both agree that the “special” needs children in their classes absorb 90% of their energy.  So what happens to their “normal” classmates when, after six or seven years’ of having teacher devote his efforts to the children who will never complete their Abitur?  What happens when they compete, nationally, for the strictly-limited field of their choice?  What do you tell them when, having cherished a dream all their life long of being a doctor, they bring home that 1.3?  By what right have you sacrificed their life’s ambition to your —  your, Gentle Reader — theoretical determination of abstract “justice”?  That Down-syndrome child will go on to be what he will be.  Maybe he’ll become a productive member of society (many do), and maybe he won’t.  But he would have done that no matter what; he certainly will not have needed to spend years at a Gymnasium for it.

“A mind is a terrible thing to waste,” as a famous advertisement once (correctly) proclaimed.  This cock-eyed UN-functionaries’ policy may as well have been designed to accomplish exactly that: the wasting of human potential so that a tiny subset of parents can feel good about themselves and their children.

Harrison Bergeron has gone to school.

Remind me how it Worked out Last Time

That a highly controversial, polarizing Middle Eastern head of state came to Germany and all the protesters turned out.  Prime Minister Erdogan is coming to speak in Cologne — Köln to the natives.  According to the FAZ, the protesters are already assembling from all over Europe.

It was Berlin, June, 1967, and the Shah of Iran was coming to town.  Granted, he was only going to the opera — Mozart’s Die Zauberflöte — but hey! he was an American ally and puppet.  Berlin, which has somewhat prided itself on civil disobedience ever since the latter days of the Kaiser’s reign, turned out in force.  Actually, when one says “Berlin,” one must bear in mind that back in those days the population of Berlin contained an enormous element of disaffected youth from all over the rest of Germany.  Because of its four-power occupied status (I’m going from memory of what I heard from my German friends 25+ years ago), if you were a male resident in Berlin you weren’t subject to the draft.  And apparently even student residence was sufficient to get you out.  Which means that Berlin university students skewed even more strongly left than university students typically do.

The demonstrations turned ugly, and fast.  I’ve never found a book-length treatment of that night, although I’m sure such exist.  Knowing what I do about how that place worked and to some extent still works, I’m quite confident there was a great deal of provocation among the demonstrators, in that they would have been liberally sprinkled with plants, mostly from the communist East, whose sole mission was to see to it that the demonstrators got well out of control.

On the other side you had the police.  Something to understand about Germany at this time is that large numbers of their senior leadership in all public agencies had . . . ummmm . . . not exactly pristine consciences, when it came to what they were doing for . . . oh, say . . . the years 1933 to 1945.  Oh sure, they’d got their “de-nazificationj” certification, but to an alarming extent those were simply fraudulent.  How that process worked, at least in the Foreign Office, is laid out pretty thoroughly in Das Amt und die Vergangenheit, the government-commissioned study of the office before, during, and after the Nazi era.  Let’s just say that there was a lively industry among former willing participants, fellow-travelers, and opportunists, where each would vouch for the other’s anti-Nazi bona fides.  And a lot — a lot — of people whose fingerprints were all over files, files detailing close cooperation with the SS, the SD, and the Gestapo in occupied and allied countries, in identifying Jews and Jewish assets, as well as leaning on host country officialdom, to get in the boat and row on implementing the Endlösung got their “Persilschein” (referring to a popular European laundry detergent, Persil, famed for its whitening powers). I have no reason, no reason at all, to suppose that the police would have been any different, especially since the police had been even more tightly integrated into the apparatus of horror.  Let’s just say that it’s a safe working assumption that the police on the street that night were anything but disappointed that the commies wanted to mix it up and maybe crack some skulls.  For some of their senior officials it might well have awakened fond memories of the Kapp Putsch or the glory days when the Sturmabteilung went about breaking up communist rallies and smashing Jewish shop windows.

As Lincoln observed in his Second Inaugural, “And the war came.”

On the streets the night of June 2 was a student named Benno Ohnesorg (ironically his last name translates to “without worry”).  He was married, expecting his first child, and this was his very first political demonstration (or so we’re told; it doesn’t really matter).  Also on the streets that night was a plain-clothes police officer, Karl-Heinz Kurras.  In the courtyard of a building he shot Ohnesorg, who died before they could get him treated at a hospital.  At the time Kurras was cleared (of course he was, all his fellow officers swore up and down on it, didn’t they?)

Except that Kurras wasn’t just any old beat cop.  He was also an agent of the Stasi, the principal East German surveillance and terror ministry.  He was also a long-time member of the SED, the official East German political party.  That didn’t come out until years later.  Also not coming out until years later was that the June 2, 1967, demonstrations weren’t Kurras’s first rodeo.  Turns out he’d been spying for the Soviets during the 1961 Checkpoint Charlie stand-off (English language link, this time).

The BBC calls it “the shot that changed Germany.”  And boy did it ever.  Among other young Germans radicalized by the events was a certain Gudrun Ensslin, who became one of the leaders of the Rote Armee Fraktion, the RAF, or as perhaps more widely-known in the Anglosphere, the Baader-Meinhof Gang (somewhat inaccurately; Ulrike Meinhof had long been marginalized, by among others Ensslin, well before the German Autumn of 1978).  October, 1978 saw the suicides of the senior leadership in prison, but by then the organization had morphed into a second-generation, even more violent, operation.  And they kept it up for years afterward, with bombings, assassinations, kidnappings, and so forth, only formally dissolving in April, 1988.

By way of postscript:  By 2012 new investigations (Kurras is still alive) cast serious doubt on the story told by Kurras and his colleagues (English-language link).  That story was that the officer was attacked by knife-wielding demonstrators and to defend himself he shot back.  Apparently that story can’t be squared with what is now known of the remaining physical, photographic, and documentary evidence.

Post-communist review of Stasi files does not reveal, it seems, that Kurras was acting on positive orders.  And after the shooting the Stasi broke off contact with him (well of course they would; their asset had to be considered a watched man, by the left if not by the authorities).  On the other hand, the Stasi recruited its agents very carefully, watched them like a hawk (counterintelligence), and generally spent a great deal of effort to ensure that they did things, and only those things, consistent with command from above.  And Kurras had joined the Stasi in 1955, so by June, 1967 he’s been on the payroll for some twelve years.  Even apart from his 1961 services to the Soviets he’s no rookie.

The promised demonstrations against Erdogan are supposed to be peaceful.  I suppose we’ll just have to wait and see.