Never twice in the same river: Björn Höcke in conversation with Sebastian Hennig [2] 9783944872728, 9783944872735

Citation preview

Translated from German to English - www.onlinedoctranslator.com

NEVER TWICE IN THE SAME FLOW BJÖRN HÖCKE IN CONVERSATION

WITH SEBASTIAN HENNIG With a foreword by Frank Boeckelmann

political stage. Original sound © Manuscriptum Verlagsbuchhandlung Thomas Hoof KG · Lüdinghausen and Berlin 2018 2nd, improved edition 2018

This document is protected by copyright.

Any use outside the narrow limits of copyright law without the consent of the publisher is punishable. This applies in particular to duplications, translations and microfilming

and digital storage and processing in electronic systems. eISBN 978-3-944872-72-8 www.manuscriptum.de

CONTENTS

Foreword by Frank Böckelmann

early years In school service The way into politics Party and parliamentary group in Thuringia People's opposition to the establishment

Crisis and Renovation register of persons

It's about home, even if we only seem to be playing. Theodoric the Great

FOREWORD BY FRANK BÖCKELMANN If the AfD receives 30 or 35 percent of the votes in the next federal election or the one after that (nothing unusual in European comparison and still far from being part of a government), talk shows and lifestyle forums will be followed by an infectious, hurt moaning: »Do we have to seek asylum in Apply for New Zealand or South Africa? Will premarital sex be banned now? Should we practice saying ›Heil Höcke!‹?” Nazi hysteria and appeals to "European values" have largely replaced political orientation among opinion leaders in Germany today. The age of digitization is also that of moral wildfire. A net of terms is thrown over world events, and this has to parry if you please. The power is in the hands of those who regulate the language and call out the topics. If the themes set themselves, the tremolo of the speech controls swells to a shrill treble. Since the start of mass immigration in the summer of 2015, it has been surprising not only that the people have broken their obedience, but also that the gullible have been mobilized. The latter see their moral sovereignty in question - the old evil must be at work there! The moderators who set the tone and their experts, as well as some party members, habitually associate the name “Björn Höcke” with the attributes “right-wing extremist”, “ethnic nationalist”, “biologistic-racist” or “apocalyptic”. But they would prefer to just call Björn Höcke "Nazi". Although they concede that Höcke does not expressly propagate the doctrine of Hitler and Goebbels, they refer to political scientists who attest Höcke a right-wing extremist world view. In writing and speaking, he often reveals "an excessive proximity to National Socialism" (according to the AfD federal executive board in January 2017), makes appropriate "rhetorical recourse", transports "anti-Semitic meanings", expresses himself with a "ductus typical of right-wing extremists" - " similar" to the Identitarians, don't show any "fear of contact with the right-wing edge," in any case don't distance yourself from it. But if he does, then obviously

for tactical reasons. This volume of conversations offers the opportunity to learn firsthand how Björn Höcke understands and assesses National Socialism and to examine whether this assessment is credible. Of course, the politician Höcke always pays attention to the possible effects of his statements in a public that is hostile to him and to the reputation of the "wing" he represents in the AfD in conversations with Sebastian Hennig. However, his statements can only be convincing if they fit together and reveal a concise, independently acquired view of German history in the 20th century - if they have not been collected abstractly, out of an interest in self-justification. You have to create a reliable, almost consistent connection that can also be presented in the future. From this point of view, let's juxtapose some of Höcke's theses (and anticipate a first reading finding, namely the impression that Höcke's joy in self-portrayal determines the course of the conversation far more than the intention to wash away accusations). Höcke refers to the "patriotic resistance against Hitler," specifically to Stauffenberg and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He complained that the "sincere will" of the Germans "to come to terms with the transgressions and crimes of the Third Reich" had been abused by the victorious powers. ( p. 65) He rejects the insinuation of collective guilt, but advocates a kind of collective shame thesis: Even as a German born later, one cannot »simply evade responsibility by saying that that is none of my business«, because such an attitude in turn promotes » "atomistic" selfunderstanding. (p. 70) In the "constant reference to the unique, factorylike, thoroughly organized killing" Höcke feels, however, "a perverse identity image of us Germans sometimes shimmers through: Nobody murders so perfectly, death can only be a 'master from Germany'." (p. 71) Höcke's conclusion: "At the beginning of the 20th century, National Socialism and fascism as well as communism tried to get a grip on the crises of modernity with brute means and methods, but failed dramatically and left behind fields of rubble in which the decomposing materialism could spread even more unbridled .« (p. 261) In this conversation, Sebastian Hennig was sensitive and yet persistent

directed. Beginning with biographical and ideological topics and then addressing the current political problem, his questions follow Björn Höcke's associations without giving them complete freedom. He repeatedly encourages the interlocutor to respond to the well-known public accusations against his performances. But Höcke avoids both the lament of self-justification and the expression of innocence. In this way he shows that the accusations are not (to) apply. Anyone who thinks they know Höcke through media coverage will find a lot of new and unexpected things in this book, provided they have their doubts about the tenor of the reporting and are curious about this much-maligned man with the friendly but reserved face that is more inviting and hesitant than determined ,to get throughappears. Anyone who trusts the media judgment will not be curious; checking it seems unnecessary. The dispute is declared to be over. And that's exactly what the defamation aims for: to silence the opponent. From now on, the »right-wing extremist« can say what he wants. You already know. Either he confirms his bad reputation, or he wants to talk his way out of it.

By opening this volume of conversations, you let the unknown Björn Höcke have his say. He is skeptical about ideas that one expects from a conservative: he rejects »orthodox conservatives« who »see no alternative to the existing«: because »the existing (...) is beginning to crumble before our eyes«. (p. 59) At the same time, Höcke explains, the past is always »also present today and therefore real« (p. 25). But it is in vain to try to "repeat past conditions" (p. 24). Therefore, there should not and cannot be a »roll backwards«. Höcke's point of view: "It's not about the restoration of old structures, about a 'new Middle Ages', but about reconnecting with the creative strands of the modern age", in other words, the "meaningful strands of tradition".expandedto continue. (p. 264) But Höcke states that he lacks "the firm certainty of faith." He could not describe himself as a convinced Christian. (p. 50) He does not accept authority and hierarchy as ends in themselves, but only in a »serving function«. (p. 47) He also does not adhere to any »ethnic ideal of purity«. The Germans themselves are a "mixed people". »In the ethnogenesis of the Germans between 800 and 1200 AD, in addition to the Germanic basic substance, there were also significant Celtic, Romance and Slavic parts.«

(p. 129) And Höcke mentioned – listen! – the “limits and dangers of populism”: Who can speak on behalf of the people? »As a people, we are already highly fragmented and basically no longer produce a unified will of the people, but rather a dissonant cacaphony.« (p. 235) Höcke countered national arrogance with an anthropological insight: "Beyond all cultural and ethnic boundaries," people shared a "tragic rift," the experience of the incompatibility of sky-storming ideas and their own weakness and finiteness. According to Höcke, his “deeply anchored humanism” was fed by this experience of humility. (p. 63) Incidentally, he urgently advises »never directing your displeasure across the board against the foreigners living here (...), but exclusively against the politicians responsible for the misery«. (p. 218) Höcke cleverly responds to the criticism of the concept of the people: "For us humans, all reality is a construction, a certain conception of the world." The statement that peoples are constructions is therefore banal.« And: »The mere fact that something is 'constructed' does not imply an imperative to deconstruct. Then you would have to demolish all the buildings in the world, for example. But maybe there are a number of good, beautiful constructions that are worth preserving.« (p. 126) It is not a criminal who is being pilloried and looking for evasions speaking here, but an intellectual who has thought through the debate about the concept of the people in a sovereign manner – a rarity in the political exchange of blows. The idiosyncratic views mentioned are typical of Höcke and testify to the resilience of a character that is as thoughtful as it is restless. How then can the discrepancy be explained between the politician's self-image and the certificates from "right-wing extremism experts" like Hajo Funke and from moderators who use them? Is Höcke a demagogue who mimics the self-critical thinker in personal conversations?

Let's think about the scandalized Dresden speech of January 17, 2017. The central statement of this speech, says Höcke, was a warning to his party friends: "Not to be corrupted by the tempting feeding troughs of parliamentary mandates". (p. 227) But then he gave a through ball to a malicious misunderstanding and to the "scandalous false report of the dpa". He called the Holocaust memorial near the Reichstag a "monument of shame," adopting a phrase

by the director of the Humboldt Forum, Neil McGregor. What was meant was clearly: Who else besides us Germans puts their own shame at the center of national remembrance? However, perhaps preconsciously untamed indignation – he refrained from speaking of the “monument to German shame” – Höcke risked the misinterpretation that he himself had called the memorial a shame. His correction followed immediately. She was reproduced in the mediaand as such never doubted. Rather, it was and is mostly simply ignored. The phrase "monument to shame" is quoted as if it were self-explanatory and required no further proof of Höcke's badness. Some journalists may well be aware of the misinterpretation. But because it harms Höcke, it appears as slander for a higher good cause. No one who has ever listened carefully to Höcke can take him for a racist or anti-Semite, and the conversation with Sebastian Hennig confirms this once more. Nevertheless, he is still accused of having exposed himself with this sentence. Because he can be trusted with anything. He has abandoned the dominant phraseology of "tolerance and cosmopolitanism" and the statesupporting ritual of German self-contempt, earning himself the bitter enmity of those who have become accustomed to being noble and good when they recite the formulas of humanitarian universalism. But since they have little more than the conviction that they are once and for all among the victors of history, they slander the doubter as a heretic.

Let's get used to the fact that any insistence on cultural and ethnic differences and national obstinacy can now be branded "extreme right." Björn Höcke himself tried to explain the extreme hostility towards himself: »And I think the political-media class has recognized – more unconsciously than consciously – that I am not 'catchable' in the sense of 'hegemony through neutralization', like as described by the Marxist intellectual Antonio Gramsci. (...) There will be no arrangement whatsoever with me.« (p. 221) At the same point, he explains the hatred of the AfD as a whole with the fear of those in power "of being ousted from their established positions and losing the accumulated sinecure." (p. 221) And because he has observed that in Germany's political scene there are »notorious deniers of reality, hysterics, schizophrenics, auto-aggressives and also psychopaths« (p. 91), he advises his comrades-in-arms: »The more hysterical the ruling caste reacts (...) the calmer we should become (...).

We should suppress every hint of justification.« (p. 222) Indirectly, at least, Höcke responds to defamation that accompanies him like his own shadow in the space of officially certified prejudice. Fascism? For Höcke "a historically and spatially limited phenomenon" that "(could) exist today in Germany only as a bizarre foreign body". (p. 141) »Right-wing extremist«? A label stuck on by the political opponent, a pure combat term. Höcke rejects any kind of extremism as "onesidedness, a fading out of reality" and any ideology as "absolutization of individual aspects". (p. 146) »biological«? Höcke denies being a "follower of a biological reductionism," but sees "man with Arnold Gehlen primarily as a cultural being," but considers the idea of "a cosmopolis with ethnically indifferent world people" to be neither realizable nor desirable. (p. 129) »national«? There is no "phenotypic uniformity" anywhere, and all peoples are "racial alloys," but not random and created in a few years, but rather the results of a long history, including the "droplet immigration" of culturally compatible people. Höcke considers the term "völkisch" to be unfortunate; he prefers the terms »people-connected« and »people-friendly«. (p. 133)

Björn Höcke is well acquainted with the spirit of the times, with »egoistic collectivism« and has a fundamental aversion to it. Calling him a "bourgeois conservative" is spot on if you put the emphasis on "bourgeois." His view of the world and of man is populated by "synthetically harmonizing figures of thought," to paraphrase Panajotis Kondylis. He remains loyal to an educated middle class that has long been overwhelmed by mass democracy, but by no other, none orientingnotion of order has been superseded. »Order« is an important keyword. In terms of state policy, Höcke orients himself to the "classical measure" that he ascribes to Prussianism, and thinks of balance, of balance between the great forces of existence: that between permanence and change, return and progress, reason and physicality, nature and history (pervading in the landscape, as far as Höcke is concerned, in the middle Rhine cultural landscape). Höcke's concept of the people contains the idea of entelechy, a peculiar "self-development" in the interaction of creative individuals who are very differently disposed, but are nevertheless closely connected to each other. If, within the framework of this world view, Höcke deals with clearly pedagogical, also academic

Zug himself ascribes a “deeply anchored humanism”, this is not a protective claim. Is the mass immigration from the Near East and Africa to Central Europe the result and expression of a humanistic attitude (as the alliance of the old parties never tires of protesting)? Björn Höcke sees exactly the opposite in her. From the »mass immigration of adventurers and people who simply hope for a better life in Europe and Germany« (p. 40), chaos, lawlessness and arbitrariness result and in the long term "the brutal displacement of the Germans from their traditional settlement areas" in favor of an explosive coexistence of sections of the population that can hardly be integrated and isolate themselves from each other in parallel societies. At the same time, "the real refugees" become practically invisible - those "who not only have a legitimate claim to our help, but whom we must help for our own sake, so that we do not suffer damage to our souls". (p. 188) Who actually wants the mass settlement of Orientals and Africans along with progressive Islamization? The Germans are not consulted, and no ruler feels responsible for the fate of their descendants. According to Höcke, behind “the soft humanitarian phraseology of our ruling classes” lies “a hard political program” (p. 201). However, this did not have to be specially agreed and formulated, but is simply "the logical consequence of global capitalism with its demand for the free movement of goods, capital and people worldwide" (p. 244). In order to rid this insight of the smell of conspiracy theory and to give it plausibility, »knowledge of the UN report ›Replacement Migration‹ from 2001, which calls for the opening of Germany to over 11 million foreign immigrants, is allegedly enough to identify ›demographic gaps‹ to fill" (p. 205). The trusting voters of the old parties are made aware of this global political, transatlantic course as compassion towards individual human fates and as an opportunity for repentant Germans to show themselves open to the world. In order to stop this seemingly unstoppable landslide, the return of the political is necessary - in Höcke's words "the exit from the international 'anti-Islam coalition' and constructive cooperation with Muslim countries - depending on national interests" and a "consistent prevention of the threatening Islamization of Germany and Europe" by "Stopping uncontrolled mass immigration" and

»Enforcement of our legal system and system of values« (p. 195). In addition, Höcke suggests that "one should think about reducing the number of Muslims living here" (p. 197), probably in contrast to other wings of the AfD, which rely primarily on consensus-based persuasion within the framework of the large-media discourse. "What matters is the will to protect our external borders..."(p. 202)

The decisive, the genuinepoliticalThe question for opponents of mass immigration is whether one is essentially hoping for an arrangement among the political forces in their current constellation or whether one believes that reality, the foreseeable development, is capable of better persuasion. For Björn Höcke, the situation presents us with an ultimately unavoidable alternative: self-assertion of the peoples or collapse. The old parties, which appear as a bloc in relation to the question of fate, cling to the formula: cosmopolitanism or decline in order to save their skin. They see the downfall dawning through the machinations of the "right", "right-wing populists", "nationalists" - it cannot come from outside, because there must no longer be an outside. Therefore, contributions to the debate by AfD MPs in the block should not be applauded. To continue to believe in that formula, the bloc must ignore the great white elephant: the threat of a Muslim majority population in the big cities and, a little later, nationwide. In order to resist populism, the "supposedly simple solutions," the bloc has now found itself in a truly populist dilemma. He is forced to bet that Islam is tolerant and self-critical, or will become tolerant and self-critical in Europe, or can be channeled into a manageable trickle of immigration in Africa through development aid. If the white elephant is still in the room, and a whole herd of white elephants at the gates of Europe, and the AfD is thus continuing to grow, there is only one way out for the old parties: to banish the populist danger,

Björn Höcke would then be one of those men and women who are right by taking on the role of scapegoat.

EARLY YEARS Mr. Höcke, the term "homeland" is central to all your political appearances and, I assume, to your self-image in general. Well, before you settled in Bornhagen, your life was marked by many changes of location. Even as a child you had to move twice, and as a politician you are constantly on the move. Is home something like the demure lover, a driving ideal that is upheld by those who lack it? I come from a displaced family from East Prussia. I listened extensively to the stories my grandparents told me and empathized with their experience of losing their homeland. But home is also a real childhood experience. I often returned to my birthplace, Lünen an der Lippe, because my grandparents ran a nursery there. I even wanted to be a gardener for a long time. The fact that my father found a job as a special school teacher in Neuwied on the Middle Rhine was not a loss of home for me. On the contrary, the Rhine has only given the concept of homeland a larger dimension. Nowhere else in Germany, with the possible exception of the Harz Mountains and Kyffhäuser, is the local world of legends and visible mythology as dense as there – think of the Lorelei, Lohengrin or the Nibelungenlied. On the Rhine, the Romans met the Germans,

I read that you had to live in a high-rise building in Neuwied and looked longingly out of the window at a stretch of forest on the horizon. You will understand that the suspicion arises that your song of praise of the Rhine is an educational product and not a child's experience. No, concrete childhood experiences definitely connect me. My father took me on many trips to well-known castles and ruins on the Rhine and Moselle, such as Rheinfels, Marksburg, Eltz and Cochem. Of course, as a little boy, that really fascinated me. The magical world of knights and castles, the Middle Ages or the Roman era, which one inevitably comes across on the Rhine - all of this fired my childish imagination and laid it

probably also the basis for my later interest in history. At the time, of course, I didn't have any systematic, factual access to it. Rather, the stories and legends associated with the old buildings became part of my real world.

Did your father lay the foundation for a romantic world view? That would be too short. My father not only stimulated my imagination, but also my critical thinking. Because we are on the Rhine, looking at the majestic river gave me two very important insights: Firstly, the Heraclitian saying that you cannot step into the same river twice and that it is therefore an impossible undertaking to repeat past conditions, secondly others the steadiness of flowing water, which cannot be stopped by human power, which is why a propagated »end of history« can only represent evidence of human hubris. In politics, these insights saved me from a naive belief in feasibility, but without slipping into paralyzing fatalism. We humans are not omnipotent in this world, but we are not powerless either.

These philosophical insights alone are not suitable for escaping a romanticized flight from the world. I don't think it's a question of flight from the world, but rather a special form of turning to the world that is not unusual for children and young people. Many years later, during my studies, I came across the term "historical imagination". In this history-didactic approach, "embellishing cognition" forms a pillar of human historical consciousness. At some point in my childhood imagination, the realization arose that the past is also present today and is therefore real.

You mean as a collective memory of common roots? Not only as a memory, a concrete, tangible legacy from the past always looms into the present: buildings, forms of settlement, social structures. They are "historical constants," whereby constancy is always to be understood only relatively in relation to the eternal flow of time. For people, they have a stabilizing, identity-forming function. However, duration and recurrence are only one side of the story: change and progress are also part of it and give it a rhythm. Ludwig

Klages once described the phenomenon of rhythm as the "fundamental phenomenon of life". In the story he is sometimes faster, sometimes slower, sometimes lively, sometimes sedentary - sometimes he makes leaps and the whole time signature changes. In my opinion, we are currently experiencing a historic acceleration.

How do these complex connections affect us? Are they also very concretely perceptible in our everyday experiences? Yes, of course, we experience the presence of the past not only in the structural testimonies of earlier epochs, but also in the people: not only children are born, in all other age groups others also keep coming up. In the same way young people, men and old people are born again. There is something comforting in that.

An English pianist once told how, at the beginning of his concert career, he saw lots of white hair blowing in the audience. He was certain that he would be able to carry on this activity for another ten years, at the most twenty years, because then at the latest all lovers of the romantic art song would have sunk into their graves. But after another thirty years of practice, there were still white-haired heads before him. They just grew back. It is also beneficial to a community when youthful exuberance turns into mature experience. Both temperaments are necessary in a vital people. It is gratifying for the individual when the inevitable physical deterioration is accompanied by an increase in knowledge and tolerance, and the ability to perform can at least be kept constant as a result. Often the decisive abuses in the country do not change significantly in a human lifetime, and yet many work to improve conditions without being able to reap the fruits of what they only seemingly fruitless sowing.

Does human history make sense to you? That is a difficult question. It could be that the whole development is ultimately only aimed at a brief moment of perfection that must pass again immediately. This thought has haunted me for several years. But for us humans it is not recognizable what all events lead to in the end. If we were to recognize it at some point, we would have our position between animals and God and thus our human position

essence lost. Everything that has been said about thoughts and theories so far remains speculation. However, below the level of these teleological and metaphysical questions, I see a very practical, concrete meaning in history: as a formative and probationary field for us humans. We put our stamp on the world – for better or for worse – and in the game of life, from the sensible to the insane, our soul grows and matures. So failure and nonsense are also part of the meaning of the story?

Yes, we humans like to experiment, not only technically and artistically, but also politically and socially. That always goes wrong. But we do have an "exploratory nature," as the ethologists say, as evidenced by the many different political and social orders in human history. This remains a dangerous tightrope walk, not only in view of the repeatedly unsuccessful attempts, but also in relation to our inner development. The Gospel of Matthew admonishes with the question: "What good would it do a man if he gained the whole world and yet suffered damage to his soul?" The insatiability for pleasure, recognition and goods cannot be quenched anyway. In the end everyone is alone with their actions. So life is a trial for us, and while it lasts we are able to give meaning to it or to extract meaning from it. However, the ultimate connections of this strange game elude our knowledge and will.

Can you learn from history? Yes, but with limitations, because history only repeats itself structurally and these structures themselves do not come to light objectively. However, the gain of transferrable knowledge is in the subjunctive. In the reality of life, history is less like an increase in wisdom and clever action than an "endless chain of stupid things that were committed again and again," as Edgar Jung observed.

For every historical power, it is primarily about changing and shaping reality according to their ideas. Behind this, however, is not only the desire for change, but also for preservation. For example, there are efforts today to abolish the German people or even the peoples in general in favor of an economically more useful species - we know the well-known formula

»Germany is changing«. About the madness of such an experiment and the fact that Germany is changingbecomes, apart from that, such endeavors also try to preserve something, in this case namely the endless growth and the magical 80 million inhabitants as the alleged prerequisite for German prosperity. Still others hold emancipation to be the very essence of being human, no matter what falls by the wayside. What I mean to say is that it's not about the alternative "change or keep" but about a balanced assessment of which things are worth preserving and which are not. This question is much more urgent today because technical means have given natural change a dynamic that is unique in history. Today one cannot confidently wait for a heresy to refute itself – the consequential damage of utopian experiments is too great. It's all too human

The isolation of the Germans, which has become increasingly widespread in recent decades, can hardly be explained by "sleeping sand" alone. Things are no better for German culture either. Once upon a time, the Germans were known to sing together. Now they have plugs in their ears. The term »architecture« no longer has any meaning, this applies to sacred and functional buildings as well as to private homes. The theater has long since ceased to be a place of education, people no longer think they can expect long texts from the audience and are distracted with fairground antics and obscenity. When I look at the bestseller list today, I can't find anything worth preserving. It would be easy for me, like Luther, to come up with 95 theses.

That's correct. The number of us Germans is dwindling and our cultural sources are buried. But if I reckon with the cyclical nature of history, a winter, no matter how long, will eventually be followed by spring. It remains to be seen whether it will be a German spring. Here is an interesting point from my childhood: in contrast to my sisters, the ruins of the Rhine landscape moved me much more than the preserved or rebuilt castles. Even as a child, these sights made me melancholy about the past human life, the traces of which are fading over time. In the gliding stream of history – the Rhine! – the human works are gradually disappearing – the castle ruins! On the one hand they tower proudly, on the other hand they indicate the frailty of all great plans.

But existence also has something strengthening: what seems so romantic to us today is often precisely those traits of the martial assertion of one's own. This virtue - today more civil than military seems to have been lost to Germans and Europeans.

But doesn't the realization of transience alone, as symbolically expressed in the castle ruins, have a depressing effect on us? Only when the world revolves exclusively around our little self, when one sees oneself merely as an isolated »atom«. Modesty is also a special form of pride - in this case the awareness of being part of a larger whole. As part of a community, such as a member of a people, each individual can become an important link in a long historical chain. Like a relay race, in which the baton is passed from generation to generation, each with a very specific historical mission. This consoles us about the individual transience and allows us to continue working confidently on the common work. Of course, only if you accept this responsibility – the baton. So many compatriots today have a problem with that... Because they see themselves more as unique individuals than as community beings.

There is a blatant error in reasoning here: today's ego delusion has nothing to do with individuality! Let's take a look at a seasoned Prussian officer from the so-called authoritarian state of Frederick the Great: he was ideally an independent spirit with rough edges, an idiosyncratic personality - and at the same time a loyal servant of the state and its citizens.

During the Seven Years' War, the Prussian general Johann Friedrich Adolf von der Marwitz refused the Prussian king's order to plunder the Saxon castle of Hubertusburg and self-determinedly chose »disgrace where obedience brought no honor«, as it is written on his tombstone. This example shows once again that command and obedience were not ends in themselves, contrary to what the zeitgeist-deformed narrative of Prussian subservience would like to suggest. In today's Western societies, a majority seems to be completely absorbed in concern for their own wellbeing. The responsibility for the whole comes with it

more and more out of sight. The conservative scolding of pernicious "individualism" is misguided: individuation is an important part of the process of self-realization. But it is always embedded in a social context. In short: It is the fruitful interplay between the individual and the community that makes a community come alive. At present we have a tendency towards selfish collectivism, which develops on the basis of a peculiar pressure to conform. I think this trend is not appropriate for us Europeans.

We've strayed a bit from the theme of your childhood. Did you finally get to the Westerwald, which you admired from the high-rise window? In addition to the homeland that my father showed me, the homeland that I conquered naturally had to come. I consider it very fortunate that I was able to spend my childhood and youth in a village, a very small village in the Westerwald, that is called Anhausen. It will surprise you that I later became a teacher, although when I was a child I regarded school as secondary and always operated it with a minimum of effort. I shudder when I see how many children are cared for and managed today. Whenever I could, I roamed around in the woods, in meadows and fields, in the barns and stables of the farms and did all the mischief that little boys enjoy. And in this rural area, where the world is still big and the day is still long, is my real home, and it will remain there.

Doesn't that correspond to an unrealistic glorification of country life today, which is quite commonplace in magazines likecountry lustis operated? Is something like this still viable beyond these mediapackaged stories? It's not about a glorified idyll, but about a productive living environment: Educationally, there is nothing more valuable than growing up in the open country, with animals, with adventures and with the opportunity to push your own limits under manageable dangers learn. If you look at the biographies of German poets and thinkers, you will find that almost all of them grew up in the countryside or in small towns, although their names later became associated with large cities. Unfortunately, most people still crowd into the big cities, and many villages, not only in the new federal states, are deserted. Just for the sake of the kids here is one

trend reversal very much to be desired.

Which childhood memories are particularly dear to you? I already mentioned my grandparents and their nursery in Lünen at the beginning. I often think of the large, luminous field of roses that enchanted me in the summer with its unique scent – even more than with its blaze of color. I can still smell the thousands of outdoor roses today. The olfactory memory is known to be the most stable in humans. And at the same time as the smell, their faces and their outer form come back into consciousness. My grandfather preferred to sell his products at the weekly markets in nearby Dortmund. At that time there were three large weekly markets that I remember. I loved getting up early with my grandfather during the holidays and driving to the markets after Grandma had made the sandwiches and the pot of tea had been made. The tea was especially important in the cold season, when the sun needed until the late morning hours to climb over the tall houses. In the long run, neither the three pairs of socks nor the jumping around on the spot helped against the rising cold. One could always observe very closely how the mood of the vendors at the market stalls improved when the sun finally made it over the houses. I think I was the youngest seller there and probably made the hearts of the older ladies happy. For the summer business, the outdoor roses were the most important economic mainstay. Today one would say that my grandfather had a unique selling proposition here and a large number of regular customers. In the summer he spent most of his time on the Rosenfeld. Wilted flowers were cut off to give the plant more vigor for the buds. My grandfather was completely insensitive to the robust spikes on his roses, he mostly cut them without gloves! Incidentally, in winter he sold Christmas trees that he got from a farmer in the Sauerland. He also moved the prickly blue spruce without any hand protection. That impressed me at the time and had a very masculine effect on me. My grandfather had callus-free hardworking hands.

It is said that adolescents must assert themselves against their parents and therefore often choose grandparents as their natural allies. In your case, their role model effect seems to have been particularly pronounced? Grandmother was the mistress of the house and grandfather the lord of the field. My great-grandmother, my grandmother's unmarried sister and an uncle also lived in the house. Then when we came on vacation,

it was a real extended family life, full of hustle and bustle - but that's exactly what I particularly liked as a child, there was always something going on! The women often stood in the kitchen. Grandpa didn't go to bed without his fried potatoes. And my grandmother really made the best fried potatoes imaginable. Once during the holidays there was "Kielkes mit Spirkel", an East Prussian potato dumpling recipe. To do this, raw potatoes had to be squeezed out in kitchen towels, which was really timeconsuming. But we children loved Kielkes and the adults appreciated the manual labor of the cooks. They had to flee East Prussia after the war and told me a lot about their old homeland. The lifestyle was also »Prussian«: As members of the development generation, work and the well-known secondary virtues were in the foreground. This made Prussia an important point of reference for me as a "Rhinelander", both historically and politically.

The anti-Prussian feelings of the Rhinelanders are often emphasized. Yes, it's similar with Bayern. Compared to the Prussians, they feel like the older Germans. You have to give them that pride. Only rarely has he endangered the cohesion of the country. There are also many legends floating around: Konrad Adenauer, for example, was said to have been separatist even before the war. He was, on the other hand, a proud Prussian official – elected to the Prussian State Council in 1917 in his capacity as Mayor of Cologne – and represented the provinces of the Free State in the Prussian Manor House on Leipziger Strasse, where a very similar institution, the Bundesrat, meets again today. If in this capacity he often blocked decisions by Prime Minister Otto Braun, that is not much different than today. They were gentlemen whose resolute stance did not call into question the fundamental cohesion. That only happened in 1933, when both statesmen had to go into exile in their own way. The later polemics against Adenauer as a "Rheinbundler" based on the Napoleonic protectorate was less a plea for national unity than an invective against the party politician Adenauer. In agreement with de Gaulle, he pursued a political art of the possible that led to the rapid political and economic rise of the Federal Republic. This is his great achievement. The later polemics against Adenauer as a "Rheinbundler" based on the Napoleonic protectorate was less a plea for national unity than an invective against the party politician Adenauer. In agreement with de Gaulle, he pursued a political art of the possible that led to the rapid political and economic rise of the Federal Republic. This is his great achievement. The later polemics against Adenauer as a "Rheinbundler" based on the Napoleonic protectorate was less a plea for national unity than an invective against the party politician Adenauer. In agreement with de Gaulle, he pursued a political art of the possible that led to the rapid political and economic rise of the Federal Republic. This is his great achievement.

Nevertheless, especially in right-wing circles, the person Adenauer is not good

suffered. His opponent Kurt Schumacher is held up against him as a shining example of a nationally minded socialist. The famous denigration of Adenauer as "Chancellor of the Allies" also came from Schumacher. As much as I respect Schumacher's patriotic attitude as a social democrat of the old school, today we shouldn't criticize what Adenauer did back then. Forty years later, it would have been more important to tackle what he was unable to do at the time of the looming Cold War under much more favorable conditions after the collapse of the Eastern bloc: develop an independent national position in the heart of Europe. After the end of the status quo in 1990, this would have required a capable and willing political leadership of the kind that still existed under Adenauer. By this time, however, passive policy management had already gained the upper hand over active policy making. But wasn't Adenauer unilaterally promoting the western ties of the still young Federal Republic?

There was simply no alternative. In the emerging East-West conflict, Germany could not take a neutral position. Even Switzerland and Austria did not have any real neutrality under much better conditions, they of course belonged to the West. After the terrible side effects of the Russian invasion of East Germany, a cooperation with the Soviet power could not be conveyed to the people. Adenauer led strategic considerations. His goal was to rebuild defeated Germany under the protective mantle of the USA. It is not his responsibility that his successors instinctively created and deepened dependencies. How strongly did the fate of your grandparents' expulsion affect you? My grandmother in particular suffered from the loss of her old homeland. My grandfather, on the other hand, was more of a go-getter type, for whom "tamen" dominated, that is, the uncomplaining tackling and carrying on. This personal and family connection led to a deeper understanding of what was happening at the time. What we know today about the fate of the expellees is often no more than a collection of sober facts and figures. But what it means for the families to flee their homeland in hundreds of thousands from the hostilities as early as the First World War, to return and immediately sow the winter seed, in a very short time the

rebuild devastated towns and villages, only to have to watch how the homeland is occupied by French, English, Polish and Italian soldiers, parts of it are given to the neighboring states without any referendum who can seriously understand that today? All of this happened up until 1920, long before what we mean by expulsion today. In addition, a problematic separation has emerged between destinies, which at best are tended to so that grass grows over them - think not only of the mass expulsion from East Germany but also of the hundreds of thousands of old people, women and children who died in the inferno of Anglo-American bombing terror - and others, where comprehensive memory management is established. There are double standards here. We become aware of the dimension of horror most clearly where those closest to us are seized by it. The stories my grandparents told me made me aware of the human tragedy in war, during flight and expulsion, as well as the elementary importance of home.

Your critics complain that you tend to lack this empathy in today's refugee issue. This is part of the public caricature that has been created of me. When it comes to real refugees, I fully understand their plight. Refugees are people who want to escape a specific danger and seek protection. Helping you as best we can is our natural humanitarian responsibility. Something completely different is the mass immigration of adventurers and people who simply hope for a better life in Europe and Germany. Even if one can still understand their material motives, I see no obligation simply distributing the economic values that we Germans have worked hard for over generations to the poorer rest of the world - and in doing so accepting the destruction of our community as well as the plundering of our social systems. Of course, I am moved by the human fate of an individual that is connected with an escape, but I am also outraged by the rather bold attitude of entitlement of many migrants who have come here. The situation was completely different for the German exiles. On the contrary: In hindsight, it seems to me that the grandparents were particularly remarkable, how modest these people were, how actively they cultivated self-denial and, despite the loss of their homeland, managed to retain a sense of beauty and but I am also outraged by the rather bold attitude of entitlement of many migrants who have come here. The situation was completely different for the German exiles. On the contrary: In hindsight, it seems to me that the grandparents were particularly remarkable, how modest these people were, how actively they cultivated self-denial and, despite the loss of their homeland, managed to retain a sense of beauty and but I am also outraged by the rather bold attitude of entitlement of many migrants who have come here. The situation was completely different for the German exiles. On the contrary: In hindsight, it seems to me that the grandparents were particularly remarkable, how modest these people were, how actively they cultivated self-denial and, despite the loss of their homeland, managed to retain a sense of beauty and

preserve the importance of life. At that time, those who wanted to survive not only had no opportunity to complain, they also didn't even think seriously about what had happened to them for a long time. Especially since there was no such thing as a »welcome culture« towards the expelled East Germans in the post-war period in the countryside. The urban Königsbergers, Reichenbergers or Pressburgers, who found themselves, for example, in the Upper Bavarian or Franconian provinces, which were backwards in relation to their homeland, had to make themselves useful with the simplest jobs in order not to become a burden as useless gluttons. No one asked the twenty-year-old mothers, who saved little more than their lives and their children's bare lives, what traumas they suffered. Today, on the other hand, competition for the most gruesome story of persecution has emerged, a lucrative market in which the weight of one's own suffering weighs the scales down. Of course, this also attracts counterfeiters.

Let's stay with her childhood and youth. You spoke of the "stories" that history gives you. Do you have to imagine that the young Björn Höcke, impressed by the castle ruins of the Middle Rhine, found himself, for example, in Gerhard AicksGerman knight sagas of the Middle Ages deepened or devoured other youth books about knights and castles? No, as a boy I wasn't a bookworm, and if so, I was a very involuntary couch potato. When we were still living in the Torney district of Neuwied, my mother took me to the kindergarten, which was within walking distance. There were always "gang wars" there in the summer, where the boys from the different groups fought against each other with plastic shovels on the extensive outdoor area. The shovels were elongated and tapered, with a little imagination you could see a handgun in one. And of course we boys had this fantasy. Later, the kindergarten then created "pacified" wide shovels. I was usually the leader of the gangs, often at the forefront of the brawls. And so I spent many hours of my kindergarten days not only fighting but also sitting on a chair in the corner of the group room, was reserved for male “daredevils”. My mother later told me that my kindergarten aunt, her name was "Tante Gerti", had taken the rascal very close to her heart despite this - or perhaps because of it. She must have often calmed my mother down when she emphasized that Bjorn would make his own way. Kindergarten was one

part-time facility. I often spent the other half of the day in the apartment. I hated that. I could see east from my room. There lies the wooded first chain of hills of the Westerwald. I can still feel today how I dreamed myself into this forest and its secrets as a child.

After all, it didn't just stay with these dreams. Yes, my parents later bought a house in Anhausen. I can still remember that time very well: on the day of the move, a shy, blond boy next door to me stood by the fence and asked who I was. His name was Jens, he was five years old at the time. He and Jörg became my best friends and playmates. The three of us made the village unsafe, built huts in the woods, collected chestnuts in the autumn to bring them to the wild animals, hung around on the farms that were still numerous, played football on the soccer field that used to be in front of our elementary school before it had one had to make way for a new gym.

Well, life in the country consists not only of childish play and adventure, but also of hard work. Do you still have memories of the work of the local farmers? I used to take you to the milking fields regularly. They were all small farmers. They drove out in the evening with one or two galvanized milk churns on the tractor where the dairy cattle were kept, except in winter. A farmer milked his favorite cow by hand and kept splashing the warm milk into our open mouths. Of course we sometimes secretly rode cows, but were quickly thrown off. I could tell many more episodes like this. As children we had no real idea of the problems and hardships of country life. For us it was more like paradise. Anyone who was lucky enough to grow up in a similarly favorable location - field and forest directly behind the house - will know this: the dizziness of the long summer days after school, which only end when the parents call for dinner. I wanted to get out of the organized everyday life, wanted to experience something and play with friends under the open sky. Therefore, as I have already mentioned, I pursued my commitment to the school strictly economically according to the minimum principle. Everything that you could experience and do with your playmates was more important to me than homework and cramming.

So you weren't a loner?

No. Although, at times I did when I discovered my passion for endurance sports at the age of fourteen and spent countless hours jogging in the surrounding forests. My friends Jens and Jörg then went to secondary school, I went to high school, and gradually we grew apart. Wandering through the undergrowth, while the familiar, nearby area is willingly transformed into any enticing distance - Goethe put this into verse in his youthful poem »Der Neue Amadis«. In his early twenties he looked back at the boys with irony. Later, when the distance to this had lengthened, it became a serious, almost sacred matter for him, as we can see from the descriptions inPoetry and Truthcan take. This sweet melancholy is foreign to many today.

I also often wonder if the people who rage against our very own human foundations didn't have something that went wrong in their childhood. For healthy development at a young age, as many contacts and experiences with nature as possible are beneficial, especially in our urbanized, artificial and over-civilized world. In this way, one gets a feeling for the size and beauty of creation and a better understanding of the elementary connections of nature at an early stage. No textbook and no computer animation, no matter how great, can replace that. The unstable balances and limits of growth that can be experienced directly in nature also immunize against an overly naïve use of resources and economic growth mania. The GDR civil rights activist, biologist and environmental activist Michael Beleites speaks of a special "environmental resonance" that can only have an effect if you stay in the natural environment. One is then "biologically at oneself" and develops a "vibrant constitution".

I basically agree. One must not forget, however, that "nature" in Germany is predominantly a man-made cultural landscape. That doesn't make it any less beautiful, but it's hardly wilderness anymore. Nevertheless, I believe that the "environmental resonance" mentioned also reaches us humans in cultivated nature, from the biosphere reserve to the city park. I'm glad that I can also enable my children to lead a more or less natural way of life, on the outskirts of Eichsfeld in Thuringia, where we live in a vicarage that was built five hundred years ago, in whose walls many generations were born and died. The old apple trees have always been on the property and on the slope next to it

the sheep graze.

I'm still interested from your childhood: How did your parents deal with the irrepressible urge for freedom and adventure? They gave me a lot of freedom here and also accepted the lack of discipline that often accompanies it. In retrospect, I wish my parents had shown me more emphatically limits here and there, because some of the omissions of childhood and adolescence can hardly be corrected later. For example, I didn't take up the offer to learn a musical instrument. I associated that too much with constant practice and a corresponding discipline and that was annoying to me at the time. Today I regret very much that I didn't learn an instrument at the time - but my parents didn't force me to do anything I didn't want to do. Rather, they trusted my selfdevelopment powers. Would you characterize your parental home as »liberal«?

Politically, my parents were rather conservative, but in their upbringing they were "liberal" in the sense that they didn't always want to patronize and control my sisters and me. In any case, it was freer than the living environment of many children today, who often grow up in an environment that is tightly organized and over-supervised by overcommitted parents. In the 1970s and 1980s, the concern that one's own children would be late or too short was not that pronounced. So I had a pretty free childhood, even if it wasn't entirely carefree.

Don't the dark sides of life also have their significance for the development of the individual? Yes, something unpleasant can also have an enriching effect in the medium term. If unalterable anger can be endured, this also strengthens frustration tolerance. And perhaps such experiences were also a trigger for my early preoccupation with philosophical questions. As I said, it's just not in my nature to peddle problems or make excuses out of them. Because when I think back to my childhood days, I feel a sense of freedom and adventure.

So your childhood was predominantly »anarchic«? You could say it like that. At the time, authoritarianism was repugnant to me. By the way, not much has changed about that: I still accept it today

Authority and hierarchy not as an end in themselves, but only where they have a serving function for something higher.

Oddly enough, it can be observed that people who like to avoid their own responsibility are all the more willing to patronize others. It is quite possible that the guardian traits in the thinking of some "dogooders" have their roots in the experience of leaden and deadening care. Anyone who was allowed to fall on their knees until they bled or came home with a laceration on their head will carry with them into later life the relaxed joviality with which they were treated when their parents made these little mishaps. Not to mention the things that the parents shouldn't even know about, but which they most certainly sensed without immediately sensing a dangerous loss of control. For me there is no greater feeling of happiness than the sight of children playing lost to themselves. I believe that the game is an exercise in life. And there's an essential difference between approaching it with the seriousness of an archer, climber and stick fencer, or with a virtual video game; whether the treetops rustle around you or a keyboard clatters; whether you are sitting on a creek bank or in front of the screen; whether you carve weapons out of sticks or click prefabricated plastic parts together.

What does »luck« actually mean to you? Goethe said that most people lack the courage to be happy. "Happiness" is an ambiguous term. The art of living philosopher Wolfgang Schmid distinguishes between random luck, well-being and the happiness of abundance, which also includes being unhappy at times. All three forms have a meaning for me, whereby I consider the third to be the most important, because here all facets of life - in addition to the beautiful ones as well as the less pleasant ones - are recognized as moments of a whole. That is then the "successful" life of the ancientseudaimonia, which above all represents an inner attitude towards life. Our whole society is now on the hunt for happiness, especially in the form of the feel-good variety. As much as I appreciate the sensual pleasure that can be experienced, for example, on a physical level or in the aftertaste of a good single malt, it's like a shy deer here: the more doggedly you chase it, the more you scare it away. Schmid also pointed out the crucial aspect for me: the meaning that we find in life is more important than any happiness. And

The meaning of life includes connections and tasks that point beyond one's own ego. When you were young, did you already have far-reaching ideas and goals?

At first I wanted to prove myself as a boy, try myself and get to know my limits. But early on, the desire arose to take part in something great and to serve it, preferably in the community with others.

Did you feel a drive towards a very specific goal? It was more of a diffuse longing, a search for something significant. It only became more concrete during my confirmation period. Although my mother is Catholic, my father prevailed here, but I was brought up in a more Protestant way, with prayers at mealtimes, talk of Christian salvation and life after death. Nevertheless, what I heard at home and in religious education classes was somehow alien to me. For me, the biblical stories were events from a world too far away - there was too much desert and not enough forest.

You couldn't "translate" them into the reality of your life. Exactly. During the preparation time for Confirmation, I made a conscious effort to achieve a more intimate relationship with the Christian faith and even wanted to find "the great thing" in the religious confession. But I couldn't. You can't force belief. How did you become a non-Christian or an atheist?

I would not go so far. I do believe that an ultimately inexplicable, divine power rules the world and unites creation - hidden from us humans - has meaning, even if it is only the brief state of near perfection that I have already indicated. I appreciate Christianity in its teachings of charity, humility and grace. The Christian faith can offer consolation in the face of the »earthly vale of tears« that we often feel and give hope at the end of our lives. Without the overarching Christian-Roman church, the formation of our people from the primeval Germanic tribes would probably not have succeeded. There would have been no Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation and probably no European cultural treasures such as book illumination, Gothic art and the music of Bach, to name just a few examples.

central meaning. Nevertheless, I lack the firm certainty of faith to be able to describe myself as a convinced "Christian" in the denominational sense.

Then you are very close to the agnosticism of Frederick II of Prussia. In any case, I read his scattered reflections on religion and Christianity with great benefit. Agnosticism is often criticized as a lukewarm middle position between faith and atheism, although agnosia - not knowing marks the starting point of European thinking since Socrates. The following beautiful description of an agnostic attitude best describes my own religious feeling: as humility before the mysteries of the world. What remains, however, despite all the skepticism, is respect for the great symbols of the religions and their attempts to reconnect, as well as respect for the people who have succeeded in living this unity personally.

Isn't it the experience of our own finiteness and limitations that first points us to the infinite and unlimited? If you have the right antennae for it, you encounter the numinous every day, every day. But I don't see any expression that I can connect with that would place oneself in a precisely defined, predetermined relationship, as religious communities and denominations do. For example, if you look at the gap between the Evangelical Free Church and the Evangelical Church in Germany, I find it too naive and seamless on the one hand, and too indifferent and unrelated on the other. Neither seems particularly convincing to me and that also applies to the other faith formations in this form. When it comes to religion in the practical sense, one usually encounters either pathological exaggeration or demented dissolution of all value references.

You said that in your childhood and adolescence you viewed authorities with distance or even rejection. You later served in the Bundeswehr. Did you have problems there? In fact, I viewed my time as a draftee in the early 1990s as essentially wasted time. The commissary with its hierarchy didn't suit me very much. I came to terms with it as best I could, but I didn't love it.

Did you find military service unnecessary? No not at all. Next to the public To use the In addition to national defence, I believe that military service is also an opportunity for young men to develop personally – in the form of a »male initiation«. The archetype of the "warrior" does not drift into the destructive world of youth gangs, but can develop for the benefit of the community. It was less the unavoidable military authority structures that depressed me than the unanswered question about the actual mission of the Bundeswehr. At that time, most of us recruits had the impression that this army didn't really know what it was for. There was certainly a crisis of orientation in the period of upheaval after the end of the East-West conflict. It turned out that the self-image of the Bundeswehr was so narrowed down to NATO that after the disappearance of the "eastern enemy" it did not have an independent, develop a national perspective. How dependent the Federal German Army was on foreign powers is shown by the fact that in the early 1990s we still had to wear the US Army's discarded steel helmet. At a time when the Americans had already switched to a modern Kevlar model, the shape of which was strongly based on the old German Wehrmacht helmet and was christened "Fritz" for good reason.

But wasn't that a minor detail you used to justify your negative assessment of the Bundeswehr? The NVA was rightly always accused of foreign rule, but an objective look at the emergence and development of the Bundeswehr leads to the sobering conclusion: it was never a genuinely German army that wanted to build on the great national military traditions, but consciously forced this break and was always in the service of foreign powers. The most recent iconoclasm against Wehrmacht remnants in the barracks is now intended to erase the last remnants of insubordinate soldierly virtues and does not stop - in outrageous historical ignorance or conscious ignorance - even at recognized Nazi resistance fighters. The demoralization of the troops thus continues. But maybe that's the intention? After the suspension of conscription, the Bundeswehr is no longer a real citizens' army anyway, which is rooted in the whole people. On the contrary, it is increasingly taking on the character of a mercenary force - whose international operations are hardly in the interest of the

country seem to take place. The current marketing triad »We. Serve. Germany.« is a farce.

But surely there are quite a few members and supporters in your party who were or are in the Bundeswehr and don't see their service as meaningless? This may be. But here good will and commitment was and is simply abused. In the time of the "Cold War" military service may have had a reason. Today, as a Bundeswehr soldier, you help to implement foreign great power strategies. That could change after the American withdrawal from Europe and a possible dissolution or reorientation of NATO. But until then, if you're just looking for a job, you should look around at the Bundeswehr. If you really want to serve your country with arms, you should consider waiting for better times.

But wouldn't it then make more sense to expect these "other, better times" in the Bundeswehr, too, and to take small, concrete signs on the ground to ensure that something changes? That would also be an option, but the scope for this has become smaller and smaller due to political interventions and personnel adjustments. One likes to make fun of the exaggerated loyalty of the officer corps of the past to their political commanding authorities, but at the same time ignores the widespread overzealous obedience of today's generals, which is geared to considerations of opportunity. A lieutenant colonel talked about the option of a putsch at a military training course some time ago - half jokingly, half seriously. Even if he certainly made a mistake in this statement, it proves the growing frustration of many soldiers in the Bundeswehr. The critical voices up to the highest officer levels are increasing and are also significantly louder than just a few years ago. It remains to be seen whether this will also have any positive consequences, because really heretical positions have so far only been known, and that is also significant, from retired generals. So I'm afraid no.

So you didn't find "the big one" in the military either, which you wanted to serve.

On the contrary, I was glad when that time was over. Significantly, as a so-called »leaver« at the end of my time in the Bundeswehr, I also stepped out of line: together with a friend, we refused the uniform motif of the year, which was perceived as stuffy, and designed our own piece of clothing. It was a white T-shirt that showed a silhouette of a soldier kneeling at the grave of a fallen comrade - of course, the "anarchy logo" couldn't be missing. Even if I think that's somewhat off the mark from today's point of view, we wanted to hold the mirror up to the end of military service for the Bundeswehr: as an army without seriousness and emergencies. After the armed forces, you studied law for two semesters and then switched to teaching sports and history. We have already spoken about the connection to history. What drew you to sports?

Being outdoors and roaming a lot as a child, there was an affinity for movement and physical exertion from an early age. Around the age of thirteen this intensified – I entered my “cocoon period” and started long-distance running. I was often out and about alone, finding satisfaction in the movement and its almost meditative rhythm. My sensory perception changed: Silence, smell and moisture in nature as well as the visual impressions of the landscape in the wonderful change of seasons - I perceived all of this intensively during my lonely runs and enjoyed it, as well as the experience of physical performance. During this time I also began to deal more intensively with myself.

So you became an obscure ponderer after all? No, I continued to be more active, life-affirming and energetic. Correspondence with the world was mainly through my body. It was the youthful pagan "throw-spears-and-honour-the-gods," as Schiller once called it in "Hector's Song." Reading a yellow, well-thumbed Reclam booklet that I had accidentally pulled out of my older sister's bookcase when I was seventeen fit into this mood. It was Friedrich Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals. Aren't you now constructing this "coincidence" in a directed retrospective?

I cannot rule out the possibility that I had encountered Nietzsche before. "Coincidence" is all the harder for me anyway,

the older I get. In the storm and stress of youth, one believes not only uprooting trees, but also being able to turn the world upside down with one's will. In the middle of life one has usually already run into a few dead ends, experienced failure in love and lost people forever through death. And: the unlived lives are becoming more numerous! But regardless of that, the question has always occupied me: are the processes in the world – and thus our own actions – determined or not? This touches on the old question of human free will. My grandmother was adamant that everything is preordained. Accordingly, the Norns would have spun our threads of fate long ago when we set out on our journey through the world. Karl Raimund Popper expressed his inner turmoil on this issue,

Coincidence or not: As a first philosophical reading, this book was certainly a bang! I was impressed by how Nietzsche mercilessly questioned everything in the text: morality, tradition, the history of philosophy. In his voluntarism I found my own zest for action and optimism, as well as my contempt for the frozen and encrusted.

It is surprising to hear such statements from a self-confessed "conservative".. I'm not strictly conservative - it's merelyoneFacet of my political selfimage. In addition, I only want to preserve things that are worth preserving. Allow me to illustrate this with an example that became topical again against the background of the office haggling during the black-red coalition negotiations at the beginning of 2018: When the Federal Republic of Germany was the first European country to introduce state party financing in 1959, hardly anyone suspected that the basis for a new, unproductive branch of the economy developing as an end in itself. Today, 1.2 billion euros of taxpayers' money flow into something that I call »political economy«. The parliamentary groups alone increased their state money thirty-five times between 1968 and 2015, namely from 4.9 million DM to 83.8 million euros.

have. The menacingly overgrown party state today feeds thousands of officials who want one thing above all else, namely that things remain as they are for as long as possible. Out of sheer self-interest, quite a few of them are also willing to slow down or completely eliminate reformatory, democratic processes. The sovereign not only seems incapacitated, heisit largely. This condition is clearly deplorable and not worth preserving! Here, like party critics like Hans Herbert von Arnim, I recognize a fundamental need for renewal. The orthodox conservatives in the bad sense today are those who see no alternative to the status quo. However, what already exists has often become dysfunctional, is increasingly discredited both factually and morally and begins to crumble before our eyes.

Perhaps the recognizable decay is just a "trick of history" to prepare the ground for new, constructive forces? I don't believe in simple automatism: Nietzsche not only reminds us of the fact that the world remains in flux, but also that man must fight for his ideas if he wants to establish a new condition, a new order. And he himself grows from the resistance he encounters on his way.

And then fail in the end? As I indicated earlier, I believe in the historical caveat of contingency: es canso come, but also differently. Irrespective of his chances of success, man remains a striving being because he has become a dying being at birth. As Heidegger says, he is directed towards death. But it is precisely this shattering realization that can become the humus of life for him, driving him to great deeds.

So the ubiquitous doom of one's own death is a kind of »teacher« for life? It can be said like this. Only the awareness of finiteness and transience feeds human vigour. The fact that one often fails with one's projects and ideas is no argument against it: all life is ultimately fragmentary. During his imprisonment in the Third Reich, Dietrich Bonhoeffer described spiritual existence as a torso in a "letter from prison". That remains essential to human life. But he also said that there are two types of fragments: the ones on the

Heaps of rubbish belonged to history and the others, in which one could see the whole in its greatness even in the incomplete. The path of history is paved with both variants.

The political agent can hardly ever be certain of what kind of fragment he is building himself. Is there nothing left for him but hope? Yes, provided that this statement does not serve as an excuse for irresponsible action, along the lines of: Let's just open our borders, who knows what good things will come of it. This is what happened in the late summer of 2015, when the chancellor acted as a protective Madonna for all the weary and burdened in this world and encouraged them to migrate to Germany. An inner compass for the right action should be taken for granted, according to Kant's formula: "The starry sky is above my head and the moral law in my breast." In this political function, this law also includes responsibility towards one's own people, to whose fate one is bound solely by oath, even if one rejects a German flag in disgust. Of course, as a politician, you remain far too involved in current events and cannot assess all the consequences of your own actions. The long-term results of political-historical processes ultimately lie outside the sections that people can plan for. But that's not a plea for inactivity, on the contrary: It's important that you do what you can and recognize as right and don't excuse yourself from the start with the difficulty and complexity of the task. There will always be a compromise in the end. But there is also a danger here: politicians who base their ballistic trajectory on the compromise from the outset will ultimately shoot themselves in the foot. A certain absoluteness, boldness and contempt for reality are part of it if you want more, than just reproducing what is there. Your own will and inner strength play a decisive role in larger projects. Don't dismiss that as egomania. Often one feels only as a medium, as moved and moved at the same time.

Truly great deeds always point beyond the death of those who initiated them. The cathedrals, which often took centuries to build, the landscape parks, which took several generations to take shape, or the railway and road network.

The new has always destroyed a part of the old, often unconsciously and completely unintentionally.

But there's a difference between building a cathedral or a dyke like our ancestors did without being able to take accurate measurements of its carrying capacity - with God's help, so to speak - and tearing down a border and watching a flood pour in and whatnot simply imploringly says: »We can do it.« And by »we« also means others, namely our children and grandchildren, who inevitably have to spoon this soup out without the question of who brought it on them being of any help. Because in the fantasies about these new citizens who are supposedly given to us, there is a hubris without any humility in the face of one's own finiteness and the responsibility for the descendants.

Isn't this humility, which you keep mentioning, a more Christian motive in your thinking? I don't know if you can call that Christian. At least I think »fresh and cheerful paganism« is too short: In the earthly world, light and shadow are wildly intertwined. A “tragic tear” runs through everything – including ourselves. You know that from your own life experience. The "Tears of Virgil" somehow cling to every thing in this world.

Shakespeare's dramas, and earlier Greek tragedy, report on this in abundance. Suffering, pain and defeats can hardly be avoided in life. Incidentally, Theodor Fontane named a third thing between arrogance and humility, to which actual life belongs: courage. A nice hint. Not only because it corresponds to the slogan »Mut zu Deutschland« but because it also shows that humility alone can lead to passivity and subservience. Today, as a patriot in an anti-national regime, you really have to have courage, otherwise you would quickly despair.

But what do the »Tears of Virgil« mean for your political self-image? Sharing the "tragic rift" with all human beings leads to a higher-level connection that transcends all cultural and ethnic boundaries. My deeply anchored humanism is fed by the knowledge and the feeling about this common destiny. This unity of being human in the face of the inner wound is elementary. The question now is how do we deal with it? Carl Gustav Jung once said: "Where we stumble, we find pure gold."

We have already spoken about the importance that affliction can have for the development of a personality. So human life would be an initiation story? Correct. And this applies not only to individuals and humanity as a whole, but also to peoples. In our eventful history, we Germans have repeatedly experienced difficult trials and elementary maturation spurts. If we look at the catastrophic defeat of 1945, for example, one can say: alongside all the misery and terror, there is also a "lead of the vanquished," as the lucid title of a book by Baal Müller suggests.

In view of the millions of dead people and the gigantic destruction, it is not easy to see a "head start".. As absurd as that statement may seem in the face of collapse, the victor is as vulnerable to self-deception as the loser is to despair. He believes he has done everything right and is convinced that his "system" is the better, truer, more successful one. In a vulgar Darwinist sense, he is right: his "system" was the stronger one and prevailed. But that makes him haughty and incapable of criticism of his own mistakes and shortcomings. The loser is initially in a crisis of meaning and quarrels with himself. However, he has a huge advantage over the winner: he is forced by the circumstances to ask himself questions: How could this happen? Where did you go wrong? What lessons can be learned from this? So history may be written and dominated by winners for a certain period of time, but in the long term the vanquished has a head start thanks to the knowledge gained.

This is now the ideal-typical description of a process that certainly does not necessarily happen. Yes, of course this opportunity must be seized. To what extent this was successful in Germany after 1945 would be worth examining in detail. The hot war had hardly ended when the Germans found themselves drawn into the cold war. A widespread sincere will to come to terms with the misconduct and crimes of the Third Reich was overshadowed by the interests of the victorious powers. This has made real catharsis difficult, if not impossible.

A catharsis in the spirit of Stauffenberg, as the political philosopher Bernhard Willms remarked?

Perhaps. The problem was that the resistance fighters around Stauffenberg acted out of an aristocraticpatriotic spirit. Thus they could not be a reference group to reshape the Germans, since from the point of view of the British and Americans they stood for the hated "Prussian militarism" that had to be overcome. The political ideas of this resistance were also not compatible with the respective ideas of the victorious powers in East and West, because they would have resulted in a presidential republican system. A strengthening of our national substance was not in the interests of the Allies anyway. Rather, they were willing to eliminate us completely as a subject of international law. Only the Cold War, with its nuclear annihilation capacities, saved us Germans from it - in the global political situation at the time, it was ultimately impossible to do without a strong ally in the heart of Europe. The extent to which a renewal of Germany could be pushed through despite this external pressure remains astounding. But the existing moral impulse was then skilfully transferred to the onset of »coming to terms with the past« – for the purpose of political patronage and paralysis of our national identity. However, maturation occurs through the productive processing of wounds and not through neurotization. still amazing. But the existing moral impulse was then skilfully transferred to the onset of »coming to terms with the past« – for the purpose of political patronage and paralysis of our national identity. However, maturation occurs through the productive processing of wounds and not through neurotization. still amazing. But the existing moral impulse was then skilfully transferred to the onset of »coming to terms with the past« – for the purpose of political patronage and paralysis of our national identity. However, maturation occurs through the productive processing of wounds and not through neurotization.

Would the Germans at that time have been capable of such a "purification"? Of course, in the post-war years most of them were concerned with mere survival and had to cope with numerous existential problems. After the first shock caused by the collapse had been overcome and living conditions slowly returned to normal, there would still have been enough impetus. However, these gradually flagged in the emerging affluent society with its many promises and distractions. I believe that today we have significantly worse conditions for a productive processing of events, because that requires a reasonably stable identity with a natural self-affirmation. And this feeds primarily on positive historical events in the collective memory.

With your Dresden speech at the beginning of 2017, you touched on this topic in a somewhat bold manner and immediately met with great opposition, including from within your own party. In this context, you spoke of the need for a 180° historical-political turnaround. Can you briefly explain what you meant at the time?

My opponents interpreted this as if instead of officially condemning the Third Reich I was now demanding its glorification. This is of course wrong. Of course we must not close our eyes to the mistakes and crimes of the Nazi era. But no man and no people can build their selfconfidence only on negative references. The light sides of the story form the core of the identity without denying the dark sides that are also present.

So it wasn't about reversing the standard of evaluation for you? No, even if I was maliciously accused of it again and again. I was merely pleading for a review of our approach to self-encountering as a people and a nation. Instead of allowing ourselves to be ruled solely by the stressful features that make us ill in the long term, we should feel at least as committed to the healing aspects of our history - but above all not constantly discrediting them with the others. This has mainly to do with self-respect, without which one cannot expect respect from third parties. How can one blame a person when he loses his respect for someone who continually degrades himself below his commonly felt worth?

In the Dresden speech you mentioned the Holocaust memorial in Berlin as a symbol of such an exclusive determination by the reprehensible. Yes, and I used the description of the director of the Berlin Humboldt Forum, Neil McGregor, as a "monument to shame". This was not intended to question or play down the terrible suffering and the many victims of the Jews during the Nazi era, but only our way of dealing with this factum brutum. My party friend Alexander Gauland, who supported me in the ensuing storm of indignation, replied to an outraged journalist whether he wouldn't describe the Holocaust as a disgrace? The whole thing was based on a false report by the dpa, whose editors apparently didn't know German grammar - or didn't want to be...

Interestingly, the architect of the memorial, Peter Eisenmann, said that it should not be a constant reminder of the crimes of the ancestors, nor was it about guilt, he wanted to help the Germans to reconcile themselves with their history and their identity. This is astonishing and contrary to the intentions of the initiators,

who above all connected the memorial to a symbol of German guilt and shame. But even if you follow their intention, there was already a great deal of controversy in the development phase as to whether the in this Form makes sense - whereby, for example, the then cultural commissioner of the SPD-led federal government, Michael Naumann, who Mirror-Publisher Rudolf Augstein, the highest church representatives and Jewish personalities such as Julius Schoeps and Henryk Broder spoke out against the project. So you're not fundamentally opposed to "coming to terms with the past"? On the contrary: we even need a renewed engagement with our history, but a completely different one than what we are experiencing today. This overzealous ticking off of good and bad is more evidence of a laziness that wants to avoid a deeper, even painful reflection on one's own past. It's not about "washing white" instead of "dying brown." Reality is always much more complex and contradictory than the all-toosimple political and moral drawers can capture. Even those who use the term »coming to terms with the past« to describe the current way of dealing with history are subject to a semantic error: Nothing at all is to be dealt with here – that would be inner maturation and strengthening – but only our national self-esteem should be undermined. In fact, its erosion is already well advanced and we are therefore in danger of ruining our future. You can also see that in the current immigration crisis: the legitimacy of any resistance to an insane policy is denied to us Germans with reference to our historical guilt. The Dutch writer Leon de Winter, who comes from an orthodox Jewish family, sees the irrational "welcome culture" as a sign of German shame and remorse. Nothing against a pronounced sense of responsibility towards one's own history, but it has now degenerated into a desire for self-abolition. The legitimacy of any resistance against an insane policy is denied to us Germans with reference to our historical guilt. The Dutch writer Leon de Winter, who comes from an orthodox Jewish family, sees the irrational "welcome culture" as a sign of German shame and remorse. Nothing against a pronounced sense of responsibility towards one's own history, but it has now degenerated into a desire for self-abolition. The legitimacy of any resistance against an insane policy is denied to us Germans with reference to our historical guilt. The Dutch writer Leon de Winter, who comes from an orthodox Jewish family, sees the irrational "welcome culture" as a sign of German shame and remorse. Nothing against a pronounced sense of responsibility towards one's own history, but it has now degenerated into a desire for self-abolition.

Critics of the cult of guilt often point out that there is only individual guilt anyway and that the theory of collective guilt is therefore invalid. From a purely criminal point of view, that is correct. Otherwise there would be a kind of national clan liability and that would be a breach of civilisation. Apart from that, however, I consider such a view to be problematic: If one under

If a people understands a community whose members are in a fateful, cross-generational connection, then as a German I cannot simply evade responsibility by saying that it is none of my business because I was born after the events. That would mean that I would fall back into an "atomistic" self-image, which I have already criticized before.

If a close relative in my family has done something bad, while not directly guilty, do I feel some shame that that person is part of my family? The apple doesn't tend to fall far from the tree. Exactly. If one takes seriously the concept of "people" in Edmund Burke's sense as an ideal community of the dead, living and not yet born, one must also accept the associated complications. Then one cannot be indifferent to what one's own ancestors did in terms of good and evil. Accepting collective responsibility does not mean, however, that this must be done in a self-destructive manner.

It is interesting in this context that those who consider the existence of peoples to be pure pipe dreams speak of a community of liability that is very well defined ethnically. The Turks living here are not being asked to do penance because of Auschwitz, or at least not yet. Be careful, Berlin State Secretary Sawsan Chebli has already called for a concentration camp visit for "everyone living in Germany," including immigrant Muslims. But it's true, until now the official compulsion to remember has been largely ethnically exclusive. Here there is a blatant contradiction to the also official negation of everything folksy. But should I regret that now? It could be that precisely in this contradiction there is still a small spark of national self-confidence to be found. However, this can take on bizarre traits when one considers the constant reference to the unique, factory-like, thoroughly organized killing. Even in the horror, a perverse identity image of us Germans sometimes shimmers through: Nobody murders so perfectly,

Without putting anything into perspective, we have to realize that outrageous things happened everywhere during the war. Gottfried Dietze has in his bookThe Hitler Complexexpressly pointed out in 1990.

Yes, the 20th century has generally been a century of brutal mass destruction. Millions of people lost their lives for the evil mixture of fanatical sense of mission and advanced technology.

There is also something else: the reports of it are perceived as more and more terrible over time. Last but not least, this is probably also related to the increasing comfort and the material definition of happiness. The more comfortably we pad our lives, the more painfully we realize that the last shirt has no pockets. The horror of the Holocaust reflects the very individual fear of death. The suggestion of films such as Schindlers List.For their part, many of those who are outraged in retrospect can become very bestial when it comes to their own skin. Let's return to the sense of humility that reconciles us to life as a temporary phenomenon and the inevitable end of our individual existence. Without a »Night Sea Voyage« we will not make any progress – also mentally. Jakob Böhme's words, which I recently read, touched me deeply because they express the idea of initiation so wonderfully: who does not die before he dies

He perishes

when he dies

Not far from where they currently work in Erfurt is the Preacherkirche, where Meister Eckhart worked. What does the inner approach of German mysticism mean to you? For me it is a very worthwhile spiritual adventure - completely independent of religious questions. The mystical immersion isone Opportunity to get closer to the numinous. The drop of individual life, which according to Meister Eckhart returns to the sea after earthly death and rises there without disappearing, reminds me of Schopenhauer's idea that we are individual incarnations of the general will to live, which after earthly time returns to the great reservoir sink back from which constantly new figurations arise. When I read Jakob Böhme, the question came to mind

whether the real strength of Christianity does not lie in its character of initiation? The image of a wounded Son of God who was crucified and who »rises« after suffering and death and finds redemption shook me for a long time and even alienated me, and actually still does. However, it strengthens the all-too-human hope that after life's often painful trial, the rift will eventually be closed and the world will be "healed" again.

Although you are actually so strongly influenced by Christian thoughts, was reading Nietzsche able to promote your youthful estrangement from Christianity? I found the bluntness of his criticism liberating, especially since it was not intended to be destructive, even though it was formulated as a sledgehammer. His dislike was related to the Protestantism of the then official church, which he accused of hypocrisy and bigotry, and which provoked him to mockingly remark that, strangely enough, Christians did not look redeemed at all. What impressed me most about Nietzsche was his courage and intellectual fearlessness, and for that reason I will read him as long as I live.

Which of Nietzsche's works were still important to you? His writing fromBenefits and disadvantages of history for lifehad an impact on my self-image as a history teacher. I am convinced that the study of history is and must be primarily science. But Nietzsche instilled in me a fair amount of skepticism about false objectivism and historical fact-bending. And he rightly warned that history should not stand in the way of present life, but rather inspire it. Do you see yourself as a "Nietzschean"?

I have never been a "disciple" of anyone and therefore not a "Nietzsche disciple" either; this historical figure is much too complex and contradictory for that anyway. But he gave me important intellectual impulses and powerfully expressed what I felt as a young person: My enthusiasm for sport, the youthful body experience - I saw that as an expression of the positive will to live and the masculinity that Nietzsche demanded. But like everything in life, the praise of the vital also has its dark side: Nietzsche, the glorifier of will and power, is known to have ended in mental derangement after his physical collapse. He was a "poet of strength" who came from weakness.

Isn't the irrational in Nietzsche also dangerous in politics? It is an old accusation against the Germans that they are abysmal and unpredictable. Behind the staid Michel there is an uncanny furor that breaks out from time to time. And indeed, throughout history, German good-naturedness repeatedly turns into "Teutonic rage." But that's probably not what "irrational" means here. Nietzsche himself comes much closer to the point with his famous statement that we Germans are Hegelians, even if Hegel had never lived. By this he did not primarily mean the Swabian system builder with his strict deductions, which already provoked Arthur Schopenhauer to caustic Sottises. He meant that becoming and development are more important to us Germans than what is. This corresponds to the Greek panta rhei, being as eternal becoming.

Exactly, and that's what makes us Germans so "restless," so "unsteady," so "unpredictable" from the outside perspective. The knowledge of being as becoming is a core idea of German idealism. Not only Kant, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel should be mentioned, but also our classics Herder, Goethe and Schiller. These poets and thinkers were anything but "irrational." Rather, here we find the reason and the classical moderation that also made up the Prussian state. Earlier you mentioned Schopenhauer, the despiser of Hegel. Nietzsche was also under his spell, at least in his younger years. How would you describe your relationship with the great pessimist?

Of course, as a result of my reading of Nietzsche, I also came across his writings. As with Nietzsche, I liked his resistance to authorities that had become hollow and his criticism of the "establishment" that confronted him above all in the form of the university system. I was also able to understand his view of life as suffering and of the ultimate loneliness of man. It's an effective antidote to the rampant shallowness of today's fun society. I took up the ethics of compassion from him and also the view that art could free us from suffering.

But stood the big Yes! Nietzsche's irrepressible, world-determining will not the big No! Diametrically opposed to Schopenhauer's – on the one hand self-empowerment on the other hand mercy? Certainly, and here I could see Schopenhauer in his searching movements in the

Far Eastern philosophy also do not follow. His "Buddhist nihilism," his rejection of the vita activa contradicted my conviction that forming, shaping, developing, despite the suffering associated with it, is to be affirmed - indeed, constitutes our actual humanity.

After a whole series of names from the 19th century, what shaped you philosophically from the 20th century? Intellectually, this 20th century has largely been a clash of ideas from the previous two centuries, and as such has much less autonomy than is widely believed. Nevertheless, there are also a number of outstanding thinkers. I mentioned Ludwig Klages, Edgar Jung, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Heidegger. I came across the latter during my studies, when I was already in my twenties. Today that seems a bit adventurous to me, but I had it in my headBeing And Timeread without any secondary literature and without any guidance from a teacher. I believe that the difficult undertaking has paid off, even if it is difficult for me to show concrete results. Even Heidegger's courage to legitimize being in relation to beings is an experience. He wrestles with the limits of language, but not in the vulgar sense that is widespread today, which ultimately considers a kind of computer language to be more realistic. Heidegger applies Nietzsche's dictum that the philosopher must use his nose and instinctively defend himself against the formalism of grammar. The hyphens in his words, much derided or copied by busybodies, bring pauses for thought in the course of speech in order to listen to what the language reveals beyond what is commonly heard. Many would agree that a poet expresses more than the text contains, taken as prose. But Heidegger tries to illuminate this more, for example in Hölderlin. His expansion of the speakable aims at an expansion of the thinkable. He shows that we have not reached a final phase in the history of ideas either, and thus exposes modern serenity as laziness in thinking.

various his entanglement accused of National Socialism. Can you ignore that at all? Heidegger

becomes

with dem

It is undisputed that Heidegger – like Stefan George – initially saw in National Socialism a force for renewal and – admittedly unlike George – publicly supported the regime after 1933.

But it is also undisputed that he soon turned his back on the Nazis. He shared this change from initial approval to growing skepticism to rejection with a number of other minds of the time. It is now as popular as it is reasonable to condemn this behavior after the fact. Heidegger's philosophy stands on its own, it is an intellectual monolith. He also valued less the "works" and more the "paths", even the "wooden paths" which he believes lead to the sources. No ideology can be built from such an attitude. Reading Heidegger also confirmed my deeply felt anti-materialism. No viable ideas of order can be derived from materialistic ideologies, but only technocratic structures that at the beginning of the 21st century could only laboriously cope with bread, games,Brave New Worldand George Orwell's1984.

Today, accusations of National Socialist contamination are often aimed at the content itself. The leveling powers themselves dislike the great distinguishers, such as Konrad Lorenz, Carl Gustav Jung and Martin Heidegger. It's not about alleged misconduct. The fatal thing about this rejection of spiritual and artistic personalities solely because of their entanglements and errors in the twelve years mentioned is that one loses such valuable treasures. Another symptom of this doctrine is that a true statement is rejected simply because the opponent first or most forcefully asserted it. This leads to a mental flattening, as we experience it today, especially in politics.

Is there a specific political gain in dealing with Heidegger? Running politics with Heidegger, so to speak? I think that's a difficult task. I believe that in the special sphere of politics we are better off with the classic state thinkers and statesmanlike practitioners like Bismarck or Adenauer. But Heidegger had an indirect political effect on me – after all, he shaped my “conservative modesty” as the “anti-ideologue” mentioned above – and indirectly as a philosopher who operated on the limits of what could be spoken and therefore thought. His criticism of the belief in technology and his advocacy of the preservation of nature and landscape - not some abstract "environment" opposed to humans, but quite concretely the forests, meadows,

Fields, animals and plants of our homeland - stand for the conservative part in my political thinking.

Are there certain habits that you took with you from adolescence into adulthood, that you "preserved"? In addition to endurance sports, I discovered my passion for hiking when I was fourteen. For many years I have regularly taken part in the "Westerwald March", which traditionally leads over fifty kilometers through the lovely landscape of the well-known low mountain range on Ascension Day. When hiking, you are particularly close to nature due to the leisurely pace. If you have a good conversation partner at your side, this form of movement represents the best possible synthesis of body, mind and soul for me. I would like to say, a special German form of the ancient Greek Peripatetics.

Unlike a sporty run, hiking requires a lot of free time. How can you afford that alongside your political work? In fact, at the moment I'm often just reminiscing when I'm sitting at home in front of the fireplace late at night. When we do one thing, we exclude another. However, I am convinced that my current probationary field has a suprapersonal necessity, even if I can only begin to grasp it. Allow me to use the image of the Wanderers above the sea of fogby Caspar David Friedrich, although this conservative parable seems a bit worn today. It hangs as an art print on the wall next to the fireplace and my gaze often switches back and forth between the flames and the wanderer during evening contemplation. For me he is one of my good spirits: He reminds me that our life as a whole - no matter how rooted in our homeland and down to earth we may be - is a journey, with many winding, uncertain and sometimes dangerous paths. And he warns me not to delve too deeply into the depressions of party politics, where the insignificant, even the nonintellectual, often dominates day-to-day business. If you look at rulers like the Staufer Emperor Friedrich II.

Have hope that this lofty ideal will prevail in your party

can be realized? To affirm that would be presumptuous. You should be self-critical about it. We are all - and I don't want to exclude myself - more or less affected by the overall social decline in intellectual and educational standards. That's why I formulated the sentence as an imperative, as a goal that has not yet been reached and as a request - also to myself - to make a clear improvement again. But first you have to perceive the loss of level! I have the impression that in large parts of society, including the party milieu, that is not the case at all. That, too, is a consequence of the flat hedonization: most of them still feel "cannibalistic" like Goethe's "Five Hundred Pigs" in Auerbach's cellar.

IN DEBT SERVICE If we now step back into the progressing line of your CV, then we find that soon after graduating from high school and the subsequent brief interlude in law you studied sports and history to become a teacher in Gießen and Marburg. When you became a teacher, the world of a professional politician was still a long way off. Which pedagogical theories became groundbreaking and fruitful for you? I completed my legal clerkship at the Goethe-Gymnasium in Bensheim on the Hessian Bergstrasse. I introduced the second dissertation by quoting a man who had lived in neighboring Heppenheim between 1916 and 1938: Martin Buber. The quote was: »All real life is encounter.« A few months later I started my first permanent position in Groß-Gerau. The integrated comprehensive school there bears the name of Martin Bubers. There are coincidences... or maybe not? In any case, when I first visited the school, which at the time was a rather unsightly concrete building from the 1970s, a glass display case in which Buber's works were exhibited immediately caught my eye. I didn't need any further pointers and began to study Buber's writings more closely. Which thoughts of the thinker, who is primarily known as a philosopher of religion, were you able to use for yourself as a teacher?

The basic idea of Buber's "Philosophy of Dialogue" made sense to me from the start, namely the idea that in encountering and in dialogue with the other we become the actual "I". This is also evident in the teacher-student relationship. The dialogical approach presupposes that the teacher is open to understanding for the pupils, that is, the ability to respond to the other, to let them have their say, so that the pupil can develop in his individuality.

Buber distinguishes in his main workMe and youbetween the momentary encounter and the continuity of a relationship. The latter corresponds to the ongoing tension between the individual encounters. This is then also the sphere of action in which an education for life takes place. Contrary to the maxim ascribed to Lenin, "Trust

is good, control is better« the lasting effect takes place here in the absence. Exactly. We experience that the contours of particularly valued people tend to become sharper at a distance. We had an intensive personal encounter, the content of which we only become aware of afterwards and which changes us as if in a kind of reverberation and makes us more receptive to the next imprint. Buber credits a character who can cope with this ongoing dialogue with the ability to respond to every situation and demand "according to their uniqueness."

To transfer the thought to pedagogics: Whether the school can implement its educational mission or not depends above all on the personality of the teacher? Correct. And this personality is also reflected in the fact that she engages in dialogue with the students. A nice German word: one another. The other is already contained in the word - just like what is common. Incidentally, for Buber it was self-evident that education was always also education for community, because there can only be a dialogical relationship, the ability and willingness to talk in social contexts.

That's always the case in a school class. Not necessarily. Community is more than the physical presence of several people, it needs a minimum of harmony and joint action. The dissolution of the class community through the individualization of learning and the downgrading of the teacher to the role of tutor - such as the current trends in education - would certainly have reaped sharp opposition from Buber. Because the lasting relationship can only succeed if there is mutual sympathy and respect.

I would like to briefly put the terms »openness« and »dialogue« in a different context: you are considered a political »hardliner«. Do these Buber's categories play a role for you in politics? Even if my image in public differs considerably: I am designed for openness, dialogue and balance with my whole being. Everyone who works with me and who knows me better knows that. Unfortunately, the political public is a completely different forum than the classroom or a private setting. The Conversation, by the Buber

speaks is a personal conversation, which is rarely possible in politics. It's primarily about interests, positions of power and also about influencing the masses - ultimately about the transport of ideas by means of messages and not primarily about this or that person as such. Therefore, the political debate - especially in today's excited media business - is far removed from a Buber conversation. I very much regret that, because the lack of dialogue not only blocks personal and human development, but also constructive political cooperation in the country, which we sorely need in view of the crisis. But it is probably naïve to expect otherwise in the political arena of a party system addicted to pseudo-conflict.

And yet mutual respect should also be possible in politics. Absolutely! The recognition of the other as a person - be it as an individual or in the form of a community - is, alongside self-assertion, the second major pillar on which politics is based. Even if you are passionate about your own interests, you should also give credit to your opponent and try to understand their motives and arguments. Even if it is difficult due to the sometimes nasty hostilities and defamation: It should be possible to have a dialogue with everyone.

It doesn't necessarily get you any further if you only perceive others as deluded or conspirators. Yes, I have to accept that they, like me, have good reasons and see their actions as necessary. Of course, that doesn't mean just letting what's unbearable happen to you. However, I am convinced that in most cases an honest and open discussion would lead to solutions that all sides could live with. However, a dialogue cannot succeed if one side tries to demonstrate and discredit the other. Today people like to point out the "culture of debate" that would be so valuable for our democracy.

That in itself is entirely correct and desirable. In reality, however, this “culture of debate” consists above all of putting down political opponents and accusing them of dishonest intentions – just imagine the mindless nagging on political talk shows when an AfD representative is sitting there. That always works on one

tiresome alternation of accusation and justification. You don't talk to "right-wing extremists" and "Nazis" either, you fight them!

Yes, with these primitive stigmatizations one relaxes the uncomfortable cognitive dissonance that builds up in the face of the freedom of expression that is guaranteed in our country. »Racism is not an opinion, it is a crime.« – a simple trick and your conscience is calmed again! Then, of course, there is no longer a need for dialogue, only active intervention and prevention. But here a gate to hell opens: practically any means, including inhuman ones, are acceptable against »thought criminals« and »inhumans«. This is how the psycho-terror directed against me and my family was justified by activists who, under the guise of artistic freedom, unrestrainedly call for hatred of people. They presented themselves as the "fifth estate" who had the right to "fight alleged Nazis with Nazi methods." The provisional sad climax of today's refusal to engage in dialogue is the rampant material and psychological political violence against those who think differently.

Yes, but if the media keeps painting the picture of a huge right-wing wave of violence on the wall, it is above all AfD politicians and their supporters who have to suffer from the political brutalization: paint bag attacks on houses, arson attacks on cars, serious bodily harm and many other injuries and harassment. The ongoing demonization of supposedly "right-wing" politicians has encouraged this disinhibition. I can still remember a demonstration in Nuremberg, after which half a hundred police officers had to escort me to the car through a crowd of aggressive counter-demonstrators. Hatred erupted in the eyes of these juvenile muddleheads, who were being kicked, punched, and pepper sprayed by the police officers and who were beating on me. woman custom, the leader of the parliamentary group of the left in the Bundestag, feared a deterioration of the political culture with the entry of the AfD deputies. Has she never asked herself who is actually responsible for this decline and who is suffering from it? The AfD likes to present itself as a "victim," one hears from established sources everywhere.

This is the moral low point to which the representatives of the politicalmedia class have sunk: first produce victims or at least approve them in

Accept the purchase – which, according to our understanding of the law, amounts to conditional intent – and then mock them afterwards. If that's the official idea of political culture, I can understand why it's always so unnervingly talked about: because we don't have any anymore. But apart from these moral problems, I ask myself: do the perpetrators and their secret to open sympathizers seriously believe that one can change an uncomfortable opinion or even win voters by doing so?

This sober consideration probably got lost in the "zeal against the right." But below the escalations you mentioned, the decline in dialogue begins much earlier with the bad habit of preferring to talk about the other person than with him. Yes, unfortunately that also sometimes happens in our own political ranks. "Deliberate misunderstanding" is also popular in this context: one no longer asks whether the other person really meant a certain statement or not. I would have wished for that in some situations in which statements made by me were intentionally scandalized. But it's no longer about understanding the other person: every little word that lends itself to insult is immediately seized upon and turned against the other person - and if possible associated with a Nazi or extremist label.

Honestly, who has really met a real Nazi? That seems to be a rare, almost exotic phenomenon. In order to give the marginal phenomenon a threatening dimension, two groups of people are dubbed as such: some are simple hooligans, hooligans who use the NS provocation potential in a non-political way in order to shock the establishment. The other group, which is a real threat to the established mental sloppiness, are the uncomfortable experts and the thoughtful, who are supposed to be pushed off the feed rack with the Nazi accusation. I think the big danger is that at some point you will say reflexively and defiantly: Well, then I'm one! Harald Martenstein once headlined the World, the Nazi accusation was an accolade.

It's clear to me that this shouldn't apply to Björn Höcke, of course. But don't you sometimes play with those Pavlovian reflexes to provoke?

I'm probably too naive and inexperienced in the field of political communication to be considered a shrewd provocateur. Also, you mustn't forget: in Germany, we are now approaching the state of a madhouse when it comes to the political scene: notorious deniers of reality, hysterics, schizophrenics, auto-aggressive people and also psychopaths cavort here. Of course, that makes it very difficult to have a reasonable discussion – especially with sharply opposed points of view. This is not meant to be an excuse for verbal blunders and the occasional failed style and tone in public appearances that I have indulged in in the past. But one must also allow every human being the possibility of development and maturation. Anyone who claims I suspect he has never made a stupid remark or questionable statement. I regard the whole of life as a constant learning process - and this is particularly encouraged by mistakes and mistakes.

It is remarkable how some extreme to violent groups within the left have never led to comparable distancing. Yes, the left, in contrast to the right, enjoys the freedom of fools. However, it is not my goal to demand this for the other side as well. In any case, I rule out violence in today's culture war, which should only be fought on an intellectual level. In addition, thinking freely does not mean "freewheeling," as the FDP rebel Frank Schäffler once noted. Nevertheless, we have to go on the offensive against speaking bans and thought taboos and not allow ourselves to be lulled into a lazy peace so that we can regain real intellectual freedom. Freedom can never be taken for granted, you cannot simply inherit it like a piece of jewellery, you have to fight for it. In a strictly pc-regulated opinion environment like today's, this means that the limit of what can be said has to be expanded again and again with small advances. The perfidious mode of operation of the political establishment is:Wedecide who can say what, where and how! If you accept these rules of the game, the opposition has already lost. Rather, we must confidently reject this presumption and assert our positions with self-confidence, even in the language that we consider right - whether that suits the established or not. In short: We cannot and must not take into account all good human sensitivities, otherwise we will remain trapped in the small, stuffy cell of official thought guidelines. How do you want the sovereignty of interpretation of the

Ever break establishments by submitting to their language rules?

A certain adaptation of people to common ways of thinking and behaving also stabilizes a society. That's true, but today this "natural opportunism" of the masses has degenerated into a pathological normopathy, a compulsive conformance to an ostensible majority opinion. The psychiatrist Hans-Joachim Maaz pointed out this widespread personality disorder, which is dangerous for the development of the whole.

So disrupting the established consensus is the order of the day!

Yes, of course that enrages the Juste Milieu. Götz Kubitschek once rightly said that someone who spent his life avoiding social ostracism and hostility was probably too clever for what our time needs: "Less cleverness, more courage, less smoothness, more edge". Hans-Joachim Maaz describes such consensus disrupters as »Omegas«, a term used in psychotherapeutic work. Omegas are the unloved outsiders of the system who point out possible mistakes and wrong turns and thus have a very important function, because they are the antidote to normopathy - a horror for the political-media class, but the salt of the community. In the past, this invigorating element mostly came from the left. Today that is the social group role of AfD and Pegida.

But overwhelm you as »Upper Omega«some party colleagues - and maybe also some AfD supporters and voters - with their "small advances" not too much? That can definitely happen once in a while. I see self-critically that overly provocative statements trigger the usual defensive reflexes. You just mentioned Pavlov. It would probably be better to undermine these reflexes without dodging the really important issues - such as the question of our historical relationship. But we must not be under any illusions: even with a more subversive approach, we will always encounter bitter resistance from the established, because they have become hypersensitive due to their fear of losing their own power and react to even the smallest hint that calls their dogma into question . Since we are for a leisurely '68 trail

have neither the time nor the social prerequisites, an intelligent confrontation strategy is probably the more realistic option for us. A general moderation and refinement in tone makes sense, but primarily a question of style and taste. The verbal disarmament should go hand in hand with a substantive upgrade.

Isn't the political debate today so difficult and fruitless because there is no longer a common connection to the political subject, one's own people? Yes, that deprives the dialogue of the content basis. It would be a first step towards easing the charged atmosphere if one could at least agree on this common basis. With all your willingness to engage in dialogue, do you draw another red line – in addition to the obligatory limit of violence?

Yes, there is no point in starting a conversation on the political stage with anyone who fundamentally puts our country and its people at risk or actively wants to destroy them. For me, both are non-negotiable things, where you can only debate the "how" and not the "what". That has nothing to do with intolerance: you can argue about the interior design or the design of the facade and the garden, I'm open and also interested in different ideas and ideas. But I don't want to discuss with anyone who tampers with the supporting walls or the foundation of our common house with malicious intent or even wants to tear down the entire building, I want to prevent them from doing what they are doing. It is he who dissolves the space for every conversation, to let the chaos speak for itself. By then, at the latest, dialogue is no longer possible.

According to this classification, only very few people from the established side will be willing to enter into a conversation with you. For at present the prevailing attitude, albeit in gradations, is that a deGermanization of Germany would be entirely desirable. Yes, it is also a great challenge for me to show that I am up to the wisdom of Martin Buber in the rough sphere of political brawls.

Even Buber will not always have found it easy. When he accepted the Peace Prize of the German Book Trade in Frankfurt's Paulskirche in 1953, many in Israel took offense at him. To for

Standing up for peace today almost requires foolhardiness, a mental militancy, when at the same time brute force sneaks along on velvet paws. The »Treuga Dei« needs a »Miles Christianus«... – Back to your teaching profession! After just four years, you turned your back on the school whose namesake also influenced you. Why? For an inexperienced young teacher, the first few years are an enormous challenge, especially when he starts a full-time job straight away – the relieving routines and the sovereign separation of important and unimportant things are simply missing. It becomes even more difficult when you have a strong passion for your subject and come to a school where the teaching of subject matter is all too often secondary. And did you experience that as a young high school teacher in the integrated comprehensive school?

We in the teaching staff took on the pedagogical challenges that came with the schooling of a very heterogeneous student body with great commitment. Our IGS was also in competition with a middle-level grammar school and was considered a »rest school«. I soon felt that my educational efforts were mostly in vain, that the students - many with a migration background - were not receptive to my educational concerns, including passing on German and European cultural traditions. This frustrated you, understandably.

I was looking for a positive self-image as a teacher, for a sense of achievement, and in the end I had to answer the crucial question for myself: Do you accept being mainly active in social work or do you want to remain a high school teacher? I chose the second option. Do you see this as a failure, because in the end you broke off the dialogue in the Buberian sense?

No, because I also had a very good relationship with most of the students at this school – regardless of their social or ethnic roots. I can still vividly remember a reserved Turkish girl whom I tried to support with a recommendation when applying for an apprenticeship – a wonderful person with good talent. She will have made her way.

Was the high proportion of foreigners among the students the main problem for you?

There were already critical voices in the college, but the majority dreamed the dream of a multicultural society and sang the praises of so-called »diversity«. I myself soon noticed that one would hardly find the necessary community spirit on which the dialogue and ultimately also the education and training process is based, the cultural poles of orientation were too far apart.

The derogatory talk of the somewhat unfortunate term "leading culture" ignores how dependent we are on conventions? Correct. As a teacher, I don't always want to be involved in making a simple exchange possible in the first place. Just as not everything can be regulated and controlled in a lively society, so we depend on being met in our daily interactions. If more and more people found fare evasion and shoplifting completely normal, then no police would be able to ward off this dam breach - smooth passenger transport or simple shopping would no longer be possible. Everyone would be suspected and everything would be geared towards punishing transgressions.

Exactly. For everyday dealings, we humans need a great deal of trust and that is only possible if you can rely on a familiar, safe environment and established customs. This is the great misconception of the multiculturalists: a culture cannot be reduced to a few ethical and moral principles that everyone is supposed to adhere to, no matter how they were socialized. Cultures consist of an almost unmanageable, complex network of rules, beliefs and legal norms, about which there is a general, unspoken agreement. The people who see themselves as multiculturalists today basically don't take cultures seriously at all, but reduce them to a bit of exotic folklore and varied gastronomy. As nice and cosmopolitan as it may appear, At their core, multicultural structures are pure societies of mistrust, as the ethologist Irenaeus Eibl-Eibesfeldt found out. They automatically generate countless frictions and conflicts – even without bad intentions on the part of the people involved. And that's being sold to us as a sunny future.

How did this problem affect everyday school life?

I can illustrate this with an experience: It was a summer morning. Shortly before, T-shirts had become fashionable with the names of countries printed on them, often in English, rarely in German. The special thing was that they were also worn outside of the big football events, probably to make their connection to a country - usually their own homeland - visible to everyone. As if it were a matter of course, the nationalities all found themselves reflected in the English translation. In our school at that time, many students walked around in these shirts with Turkey, Russia or Italy printed on them. You didn't see Germany shirts - until that morning: I had physical education in a 7th grade and began the lesson as usual sitting in a circle to explain the lesson schedule to the students. There sat this rather slender, always reserved strawberry blonde girls with a new top - it was a black and white shirt with Germany printed on it. The Turkish and African boys were beside themselves. “Take that off!”, “Germany is shit!” – they burst out with this tenor. In their aggressive rejection of the "German" these otherwise rather quarreling Turks and Africans were spontaneously united. As a teacher, how did you react to this situation?

I began a very intensive pedagogical conversation in which we clarified in the group that a country that the Krakeeler's parents had voluntarily visited in order to live here with their families could be anything but "shit". As I walked out, I complimented the girl on her courage. And I immediately asked where she had bought the garment. The next morning, as a young physical education teacher, I stood in the staff room with one just like that. Of course, I didn't choose the Germany imprint, but opted for the "hardcore version" with the original Germany lettering. It was a surprise! To my delight, in the years that followed one saw one or the other student who imitated his teacher. This shirt is still in my closet today.

The story would be a good example of the fact that bad behavior should not be taken lightly, but rather seen as a challenge: to find out what the pressing question is behind the rude provocation. Didn't the young aliens just want to explore the absurdity they constantly experienced as to why Germans despise themselves? Indeed, it would be self-righteous to kneel about such an incident

outraged while our media and most of our public officials wallow in a sense of our own national depravity. How can people, especially young people, who are encouraged to worship any athlete or pop star, not be suspicious? We have to come to terms with ourselves first. It will hardly do the migrants any harm if they realize that the Germans can also quite naturally live with a feeling of modest pride in their long and checkered history.

Do you sometimes think back to that time at the Martin Buber School? Of course. I have in my mind's eye some wonderful colleagues who have been role models for me. I also remember many whose good nature and pedagogical ethos were shamelessly exploited by politicians. That's how I felt back then. The first political opponents were also found among the colleagues, but they were all able to conduct a constructively critical dialogue. This probably has something to do with the fact that we all always had to do justice to our pedagogical task. We could hardly afford the luxury of embittered rejection, as we had to master a demanding everyday working life that inevitably connected us despite all our differences. That should actually be the rule among adults, no matter what area of our community. Unfortunately, I experience it differently almost every day in the political arena. I often think of a headmaster who encouraged me early on and to whom I owe the fact that I remained very "basic". Buber's saying "All real life is encounter" has become part of my understanding of life in Groß-Gerau. At that time I campaigned for this idea to become the motto of the school. In 2003, this was also decided by the school committees and a school mission statement based on Buber was adopted. that this thought would become the motto of the school. In 2003, this was also decided by the school committees and a school mission statement based on Buber was adopted. that this thought would become the motto of the school. In 2003, this was also decided by the school committees and a school mission statement based on Buber was adopted.

They then moved from the Rhine-Main area to the northern Hessian province of Bad Sooden-Allendorf. In the school there, did you find the "ideal world" that you had dreamed of as a teacher?

The “ideal world” never existed and never will. But it was and is at least possible to avoid disastrous conditions or, where they have already occurred, to alleviate them. I could experience that there. Bad SoodenAllendorf is a small-town pearl, embedded in a beautiful, wooded and culturally rich low mountain range landscape. I

took over a 5th class when he started work and, which is quite unusual, led it to the Abitur. The students, the parents and I realized a unity that was characterized by respect and trust - at least that's how I felt. Everyone involved was willing to give more than they took. The "we" I spoke about earlier and which I regard as a prerequisite for a successful education and training process was still largely intact. Of course, the Rhenanus school also showed the effects of a failed school policy. Nonetheless, it was nine satisfying years of service that I look back on fondly.

Why didn't you continue? Well, it would have been easy for me to work in this niche until retirement. But these niches, like the ones I experienced in the Rhenanus school, are gradually disappearing.

Disappear? That sounds dramatic! By that I mean the critical demographic development that has been observed in our country for decades, but to which established politics has never responded adequately. I was able to experience what it means for a school to be located in a “demographic disaster area” in the WerraMeißner district, one of the districts in Hesse with the lowest birth rates. For years, more and more energy has been squandered on the part of the college for "site preservation measures" that logically could no longer be available for the original educational mission. The school management traveled through the country in the manner of representatives to win over the last soul of the pupil for their own school. These marketing campaigns followed at ever shorter intervals. But the intent behind it was commendable, wasn't it?

Of course you want the best for your own school, but I found the merciless competition between schools in a demographically bleeding area to be undignified. And finally, I felt a deep uneasiness about serving an ultimately futile cause just because politicians were and are not willing, for ideological reasons, to pursue an active, pro-natalist population policy.

School closures are also caused by young families moving away to larger urban centers, so a higher birth rate is of no use either.

Of course, we also need intelligent policies that make rural areas and smaller towns more attractive in order to keep young people there. Here, too, there is a notorious failure of the political class.

Did you go into politics because of such observations and insights? The teaching experience was certainly one motive – among others. Our schools are showing clear signs of decay. Part of this results from the collateral damage of failed school reforms. Another essential part is not homemade, but of social origin. In everyday school life, these externally produced problems only surface quickly. In Groß-Gerau I experienced the disaster of multiculturalization, in Bad Sooden-Allendorf the demographic crisis with the declining number of students. An old insight is: healthy societies have healthy schools. From my direct experience as a teacher, I unfortunately have to state that our society is seriously ill.

THE WAY INTO POLITICS Going into politics will not have been an easy decision for someone who puts his heart and soul into his teaching career. That's right, and I struggled with that for a long time. Even as a civil servant teacher I could have looked down on the misera plebs with bourgeois self-satisfaction, as Wolfgang Caspart once smugly put it. But in view of the political situation, I didn't feel like smiling at all, but rather crying. My personal suffering finally became so great that I had to take the step. It can happen that defending normality becomes so exhausting that it is more energy-efficient to go on the offensive. Many conditions in my teaching profession had increasingly approached a state of siege. Before all supplies are used up and water runs short, it is better to dare a bold sally out of the fortress in order to break the siege.

Now many machinations can only flourish in the dark. The decision to confront the opponent under the open sky therefore seems to me to be a real riskOtto von Habsburg, the contemporary hated by Hitler and Honecker the most, once said: 'You don't shoot is also a miss!'

However, it is very difficult to imagine going from the classroom or the staff room to a committee meeting room or Parliament as an exit from the closed into the open. Spring breezes aren't exactly blowing your way when you're standing for a political exchange of blows. That's correct. Especially when, in today's almost pogrom-like atmosphere against the right-wing, one begins his »coming out« from this side of all things. But apart from that, in retrospect, my decision surprises me a bit, because the political scene has never held much appeal for me. Although I have been interested in historical and political subjects since my youth, submitting to the laws and mechanisms of parties was out of the question for me. I can still well remember how my father would react when we approached partisan politics

always turned away with a disgusted, almost pain-contorted face. So I was taught early on that parties represent the lowlands rather than the peaks of politics. And yet were you a member of the Junge Union for a time?

That was youthful curiosity. It was here that my reservations about party operations were reinforced. Because in the youth organization of the Union you met the type of future professional politician who willingly submits to the laws of long-term career planning from an early age. To reverse the metaphor from just a moment ago, we do indeed have people in Parliament whose CVs have never had the harsh air of an ordinary professional practice. What applies to the teaching profession, the essential anchoring of the pedagogical personality in their subject, should also apply to politicians.

Yes, but I don't just mean the purely technical competence. An activity that has a strong impact on the everyday reality of the population should be fed by diverse experiences of this reality. The Dutch sociologist JAA van Doorn states that today's young ambitious politicians have more ambitions than life experience. They are valid because they are elected - but would not be elected because they are valid. And it was precisely these types who practiced the tone of idealistic conviction particularly well. Because that didn't seem right to me even in my youth, I never applied for office and never aspired to a career in the party. I was repelled by all the fussing and haggling about posts and posts. Her way into politics, however, led through a party.

When it was being founded, the Alternative for Germany seemed different to the usual parties. Here I found a real interest in political questions and an honest idealism that I had missed in the Junge Union. And the emergence of the AfD also appeared as something necessary, born out of the general political malaise. Of course, it soon became clear to me that here, too, one has to deal with the same problems and abysses that are to be found in all party formations. But just the fundamental criticism of established politics, as expressed from a serious, solid position - and not from political desperadoes - made them attractive to me. And last but not least, there were a surprising number of people with expertise in this new party

Experiences in normal bourgeois life away from politics. There were also some veterans from the old parties who could no longer see any possibility of reform there. This mixture of openness, closeness to life and professionalism coupled with a real spirit of optimism gave hope that there really is a fruitful approach to political change here.

But all that is still no reason to give up a teaching job that you feel is a calling? No of course not. The foundation of the AfD in 2013 gave me the last push. I had always followed political developments and my dissatisfaction with the situation grew from year to year. Starting a family and worrying about the future of my children increased the internal pressure. Topics such as gender madness, the hysteria-driven "energy transition", the failed integration of foreigners and the disastrous euro rescue policy, but also the senseless confrontational course towards Russia and the increasing social imbalance were just individual pieces of the puzzle in a negative overall picture. I saw the increasing failure of the political class to solve the pressing problems. The whole country seemed to be on the wrong track and nobody was there who had the courage to grab the spokes of this downward drift.

That sounds like the notorious "angry citizen" that the media likes to mock. The established media in particular have played a large part in the fact that more and more citizens perceive our political system as "facade democracy". The mere fact that the critical participation of citizens in political events is publicly ridiculed, not to mention the moral discrediting by high political officials, clearly shows how far our community has fallen. Nevertheless, the model of the »responsible citizen« who should get involved in politics is drummed into adolescents at school. According to official opinion, the best way for citizens to get involved is through elections. Voting is certainly an important, but not the only way of legal political participation. Before the AfD was founded, there were already a number of bourgeois protest movements that were becoming increasingly popular. However, there was a lack of strong parliamentary representation of these forces. after the

After the AfD’s electoral successes, the horrified establishment then created a new figure of abuse: the so-called »false voter«. It stands for the unspoken message to the citizens: "You can vote, but of course not who you want!" More and more citizens are becoming aware of this subtle psychological manipulation before going into the voting booth, as I have learned in numerous personal conversations. The ballot paper thus becomes a questionnaire containing "dangerous" passages, such as that in Ernst Jiingerforest walkhas expressed. In my opinion, such oppressive emotional states should not exist in a democracy. The haughty dismissal and the mean bestialization of the supporters of AfD and Pegida have revealed the hypocrisy of this treatment. Almost everyone who finds himself or herself involved is asked to make a confession for or against. This has already taken on inquisitorial features. Given the current balance of power, this rite is unlikely to change much for the time being.

Yes, but let's not forget: The SPD was the party with the most personnel in the empire. Within a few years, its chairman August Bebel had his seat both as an enemy of the state in a prison cell and as an elected official in the Reichstag! It should be noted that such dramatic corrections occurred within a society whose alleged obedience to authority is often presented as a black foil in order to emphasize the superiority of the free-democratic basic order. How much more natural should the transition from a demonized outsider to a participant in democratic normality take place in our current conditions. We can look forward to an impressive performance by the elected deputies of my party in the parliaments of the whole republic.

So you are convinced that this development into a strong patriotic force is as unstoppable as that of the progressive forces in the Empire? Yes, ignoring, marginalizing and holding down will not, now as then, cause the desire for political change to disappear. In this context, one can recall a trivial, well-known and never refuted insight, which reads: If the problems are burning under the nails of the people, but these problems are not translated into political action by the established parties, then the will of the voters does not change . The will of the voters remains the same. But the party landscape

is changed. And there we are right in the middle.

Is there such a desire for reform in broad sections of the population? I think so, even if our country is still remarkably quiet despite AfD and Pegida. It ferments and seethes underground – the clenched fist mostly stays in the host pocket. The time-critical columnist Hans Heckel pointed out that all the pressure relief valves had been tightly plugged by the established side. That explains the strange silence in times when restlessness is actually the first civic duty. However, to record this fact as a victory over the "populists" could turn out to be the "biggest mistake in German history since the end of the GDR" for the politicalmedia class. A forecast that gives us confidence. The release of the pent-up pressure will eventually come, the clenched fists will then be thrown in the air and the people, the big lout, shake the fortress gates of those in power. I am firmly convinced that men in particular will wake up and become aware of their special responsibility for the whole. Our future also depends on the question of male honor and dignity.

You bind the national destiny to the German men? Joachim Fernau once divided the male species into two categories: the majority belong to the »bag carriers«, i.e. to those men who only drag their personal bag of life behind them and would not think or act beyond the horizon of their private sphere. And the other, smaller group of men who felt a strange urge to "take care of everything." Isn't there often an egotistical drive for self-portrayal behind the frequently quoted "concern about the whole"?

Of course, this can overlap in individual cases. But the drive I mean is fundamentally different, it is an inner command: »You owe something to the community into which you were born. You are responsible for them.« The bag bearers also know this inner command, but they do not follow it and prefer to discreetly push it aside. And this is where I see a major reason for today's political misery: We no longer have enough hands-on men who work for their country beyond work, family and vacation.

Where are the women in politics with you? A commitment to the greater whole is of course not limited to men. In all political camps we find a whole series of patent women who stand up for their country. And I would like to emphasize - because there is something reproachful in your question - that I also advocate and support all legitimate and sensible progress in women's emancipation. We have only to be careful that politics does not deform the inner essence of the sexes, robbing both women and men of that peculiar grace on which mutual attraction and respect are based. This means that an important driving force in our social life is wasted. It gives a deep insight when those women and girls who are involved in the AfD or Pegida environment and courageously show their faces then be abused in the most primitive way by the dogged advocates of emancipation and feminism. The bizarre »Respect!« movement, which would like to denounce every compliment given to a beautiful woman as a sexist assault, is completely unmoved by accusations such as »Nazi bitch«.

Don't the women have expectations of the men anyway, that they shouldn't just passively accept the sinking of the boat, but finally get up and take the rudder in their hands? Yes, but many men today feel overwhelmed by this, not only "in terms of life" but also because of their stunted masculine self-confidence.

In a speech on the Erfurt Cathedral Square, you called for the rediscovery of masculinity, which promptly earned you the title "Pascha of the Month" from the magazineEmmabrought in. I see that as an honor. In the justification, my plea for male defensiveness was countered with the mocking question: »Why become defensive? To protect us defenseless women?” Two weeks later, North Africans sexually assaulted German women on a massive scale on New Year's Eve in Cologne. Most of the oppressed would have been happy to have protective men. But there were hardly any. As psychologists who treated the avoidable traumata, they were certainly of service to the dishonored afterwards. Unfortunately, this lack of insight is all too often made up for by a bad one

Reality on the jumps helped. Shortly thereafter, Birgit Kelle demanded in an article »We want heroes!« and wanted to know: »When exactly did men actually start to become cowards?" That hits the identity-disordered man right in the heart. There are various reasons why German men today are 10 percent uptight machos and 80 percent wimps, and these have been the subject of lively debate for some time: lack of father imprinting, hardly any male role models, day-care centers and schools dominated by women, antiviolence and anti-antibody education in general, Renunciation of male initiation, etc. - in sum, what Akif Pirinçci once said in his flippantly polemical wayThe big messnamed. However, he doesn't get to the real problem with this term, because there are a large number of gay men who are more firmly established in their masculinity than some »heteros« – also in politics.

Isn't it the case that the men avoid the argument too much? A gay friend once brought up the phrase "cowardice in the face of the enemy" with me. I found this thought interesting. Standing up remains complicated for the men. If you stick to your responsibility, then you can swing yourself to great heights without a safety net or safety net. Do men capitulate in the face of these dangers in the war of the sexes? The natural relationship between the sexes is less of a struggle and more of a specific polarity that creates the fascinating aura that draws both sides together. If you weaken or even kill off this polarity, you also destroy the attractive forces of Eros. I am convinced that there are essential differences between men and women that we should not overcome but cultivate.

What qualities are you thinking of in particular? Fortitude, wisdom and leadership in men - intuition, gentleness and devotion in women, to name just a few. And even where we also find these characteristics in the opposite sex, they are then pronounced in a typically male or female way.

So you don't see a "battle of the sexes" in love or partnership? Only in the way that the men wrestle with the volatile female being, who is often perceived as disturbing. They "fight" there

yes, also about the women. The politically correct society no longer knows this love service, which always tries hard and ultimately has no claim to justice. He can only hope for grace.

But what about the deplored social superiority of men and the social disadvantage of women? Much of it is fictitious. Women have never had as many opportunities for advancement and development as they do today. In any case, the main thrust of the feminists is less against the men than against the family. Unfortunately, today we have fundamentally wrong ideas about patriarchy and the chivalrous interaction between women and men. In the ideal-typical marriage, the perfectly legitimate questioning of male superiority is counterbalanced by the great loyalty of women. It turns a family into an impregnable force. Anyone who shies away from the small but incessant effort of living together gambles away the great gift of a happy and fulfilling life. For me, this includes expanding the ability to experience, the school of empathy and the knowledge-expanding reflection of one's own being in that of the children.

Doesn't the increased public advance of women also mean that they are pushed forward by men, who then hide behind the female aura carried to the market? There is already a kind of servitude of the feminine. Women are used to promote sales, recently also to meet any legal or even socially conforming quotas. This has absolutely nothing to do with an increasing appreciation of women! There have always been strong women – even without quotas.

Surprisingly, they were often rather conservative. It's not just Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir. Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger face Lou Salomé and Hannah Arendt. They were naturally respected by these towering men as equals in conversation. The compulsion to exhibit femininity can also contain a disempowerment of women. In 1910, the soul researcher and writer Lou Andreas-Salomé regretted the careless disclosure of a specifically female culture to the artist Käthe Kollwitz. Such genetic material would fade away through carelessness within a few generations, when it might have blossomed right now, she says literally.

The Leipzig writer Albert Wendt perhaps hit the nail on the head with the aphorism: »Woman is stronger than man – when she has one.«

And in your opinion, there are far too few authentic specimens of it. But something is happening among the men, only their protest against emasculation is usually only shown in a bizarre beard fashion and possibly in external warrior poses. The »prole drift« probably also plays a role here, the cultivation of lower-class aesthetics by young men from middle-class circles, as Sieferle described in his migration book: tattoos, three-day beard, undershirts, swelling muscles. Of course, these external features are not enough to get back to a natural masculinity. Rather, it will be a tedious but worthwhile journey over at least one or two generations. The renewal of a male culture takes time. The many men's initiatives and extensive pro-male literature are important first steps. The barber shops are a naïve signal of a serious need.

These authentic men are then the ten percent that you just left out in the calculation. Exactly, and those ten should once again become eighty percent. Masculine instead of macho and feminine instead of feminist - that would be good for both sexes and also for our country.

Coming back to the topic of politics: Does male identity also include commitment to the smaller and larger community? Right, and the smaller community must not cover up the larger one. As respectable as the commitment to family and work is, a man must not lose sight of the bigger picture. He can't just cheat his way out of there without mental damage. From my own experience I know that it often takes a lot of effort to free yourself a little from private commitments. The two are inextricably linked and interwoven: Experiencing the closer community also gives you the strength to step out onto the political marketplace, and it is again the threat to your family and professional environment that compels you to do so.

So it wasn't easy for you to switch to politics as a family? Of course, the two Fernaus categories are in every man and

struggle for dominance. Karlheinz Weißmann contributed a nice anecdote to this: In view of the catastrophic situation in England in the middle of the 17th century, the English state philosopher Thomas Hobbes met regularly on a country estate for political discussions. Sometimes he was so depressed that he said, half jokingly, "Actually, I just feel like going home."

Just leave all the political stuff behind! That's right, that's what you want again and again in times of German misery and party bickering. I then usually go into the forest to work there.

Chopping wood to relieve frustration has a certain tradition in Germany... In particularly depressing phases, when the smallness and meanness of politics dominate everything, I would rather turn into our house cat and watch the stupid goings-on from the landing. But the responsibility for the fate of your own country keeps you on the field. Just like Hobbes did in his day.

The "German misery" you speak of still feels quite good to most citizens, despite all the cutbacks... If you use the material standard of living, the gross national product and the souped-up unemployment statistics as the sole yardstick, it certainly is – even if increasing numbers of middle and lower classes have been going downhill for years and the huge financial bubbles threaten to burst at some point. However, if we detach ourselves from the purely economic view of things, we come to a completely different, existential point: Our "complaint about Germany" is not primarily about declining prosperity, but above all about our people's soul and loses his homeland.

By accusing us Germans and Europeans of being the beneficiaries of global misery, should we no longer perceive the continuing loss of everything that is dear and familiar to us? Yes, this is a double trap that leads some to gloss over and others to lament. The only thing that can protect us from this is a positive attitude towards our homeland and fatherland, which is taken for granted by all peoples except the Germans.

But isn't such explicit patriotism a bit outdated? The

In the opinion of today's elites, the future belongs to the »world citizen«.

How much patriotism does man need? – asks the psychologist and 1968er Christoph Nöhles in his book of the same name. I think with him: a whole lot. If only because today we have a crass list in the direction of national oblivion.

That is also the reason why you emphasize patriotism and selfconfidence so strongly in your speeches. Of course, in normalized circumstances, where national sentiment would conform to a Gaussian bell curve, our rhetoric would be much more subtle. Basically, patriotism is an unspectacular, natural thing. Christoph Nöhle counts it among the "collective unconscious" that is so important for human socialization and mental development. Of course, patriotism, national self-confidence, can also develop its unpleasant sides, especially on its outer edge: in addition to the identity-forming, integrating and security-giving power, it also has the potential to be »muddy, narrow and mean«, as Günter Zehm put it formulated in his Jena lectures. We should therefore always and exclusively reflect on the positive core of patriotism: the loving connection. In this case to your own country and people. This is nothing old-fashioned, but a timeless human theme and has nothing to do with an alleged "hatred of the foreign." If you love your wife, you don't automatically hate all other female beings in the world. Doesn't love make you blind?

According to Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, lovers see more with their hearts than with their eyes. And according to the findings of modern psychology, a little transfiguration is conducive to a lasting partnership, it stabilizes relationships. National affiliation undoubtedly also counts as part of this, for it is a cloak of destiny which, in the words of Ernst Jiinger, “cannot simply be changed like a shirt”. However, love is not only a place of happiness, but often also associated with pain, disappointment and even despair. Who does not know this from their own experience? It's not at all about an unreflected "hooray patriotism" that is repeatedly brought up, which only cheers for one's own and, in the worst case, exaggerates it.

So your passion for Germany also knows breaks and dark sides?

Certainly, and not only with a view to our recent history. In this connection it is noteworthy that thetazonce accused me not only of pathos but also of lamenting about the situation. This reflection by leftwing journalism unwittingly attests to the patriots struggling inside right now.

What drives, for example, a not inconsiderable part of our people to want to merge into an abstract humanity and to vilify those who work for the peculiar existence of a German being? Yes, that hurts you mentally, although this self-contempt unfortunately has an unfortunate tradition in Germany. Georg Christoph Lichtenberg outlined the German character in two words: Patria fugimus – we flee the fatherland. That was certainly an exaggeration, but it shows that we Germans have not only had a difficult relationship with our own nation since 1945. It's always been a minor or major drama.

Two centuries ago, the distance to one's own still resulted from an overabundance of intellectual appropriation, to which German poetry and thinking in particular enabled one. Today, with the weakening of our own feelings, we lose the organ for appreciating others. Apart from that, shouldn't politics be kept as free of emotions as possible anyway? According to Max Weber, good politics requires not only persevering rationality – drilling thick boards with a sense of proportion – but also inner passion. "A cool head and a warm heart" is what Nietzsche said. Today in politics we mostly have the opposite: »Hot heads and cool hearts«. I think that's bad. Incidentally, I am in good company with my plea for the Weberian mixture: a statesman as hard as steel like Bismarck was regularly shaken by violent fits of weeping when he looked at his fatherland.

Unhappy love often leads to despair. But not all people can develop such an emotional connection to their own country and people as to individual people. That's right. And you certainly can't force an emotion as deep as love! So I've been thinking about possible alternatives for a long time. In doing so, I came across the beautiful concept of self-friendship, which Wolfgang Schmid brought into play. It's not just about there

Self-healing, but also about better togetherness: Agreeing with oneself is the prerequisite for a good relationship with others. Schmid applies this term to the individual, but why shouldn't it also be applicable to the collective ego of a community? Friendship is a profound human connection that allows more independence and distance and is not as emotionally charged as love. With this gentle step we could at least overcome pathological self-hatred and ease the tense relationship between many Germans and their own people.

Loyalty is always part of friendship, which can certainly be critical. Yes, that's the perk of self-friendship: Unreflective self-love can also develop an unpleasant taste of narcissism, which friendships that remain open and honest don't have. The concept of loyalty also shows that there is no real alternative to the people as a political community: the much-vaunted "humanity" and also the popular "values" and constitutional principles are far too abstract and non-binding. Whoever demands from the old and new citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany to exercise loyalty to the western system of values or even to love them, fails to recognize that they belong to the moral universals and can at best be respected and respected. "Constitutional Patriotism" that Dolf Sternberger and Jürgen Habermas positioned as a rational basis for identification against the "irrational" reference to the people exerts only a weak binding force. And it has even more unpleasant consequences: if I make loyalty to a constitution dependent on the quality of its values, it follows that if another country realizes these cherished values better than mine, I must declare loyalty to that other and renounce it to my own. But that's not how loyalty works. If, for example, one's own children had not turned out as well as those of the neighboring family, one would remain affectionately connected to them and would not exchange them for other, "better" ones. Consequently, if I make loyalty to a constitution dependent on the quality of its values, if another country realizes those cherished values better than mine, I must declare loyalty to that other and renounce it to my own. But that's not how loyalty works. If, for example, one's own children had not turned out as well as those of the neighboring family, one would remain affectionately connected to them and would not exchange them for other, "better" ones. Consequently, if I make loyalty to a constitution dependent on the quality of its values, if another country realizes those cherished values better than mine, I must declare loyalty to that other and renounce it to my own. But that's not how loyalty works. If, for example, one's own children had not turned out as well as those of the neighboring family, one would remain affectionately connected to them and would not exchange them for other, "better" ones.

And I'm also fond of a friend with his human flaws and uncomfortable qualities, because he's my friend. That's right, the strongest bond between two people is loyalty and this is basically independent of questions of values. Loyalty and faithfulness are valuable goods in human life - in love, in

friendship and also in the connection to a political community like the people. Now some consider the concept of the people itself to be extremely abstract, even a mere construction.

Nun, für uns Menschen ist alle Wirklichkeit »Konstruktion«, eine bestimmte Vorstellung von der Welt. Und alles real Greifbare ist nicht einfach nur da, sondern irgendwie einmal entstanden, also auch »konstruiert« worden. Die Feststellung, daß Völker Konstruktionen sind, ist also banal. In der Spätmoderne ist es allerdings Mode geworden, alles Entstandene und Gewachsene zu deto construct. While this is possible in principle, the only question is whether it makes sense. The mere fact that something is constructed does not imply an imperative to deconstruct it. Then you would have to demolish all the buildings in the world, for example. Perhaps there are a number of good, beautiful constructions that are worth preserving. In this context, I remember how, as a child, I spent hours building the most complex towers with great concentration and then "deconstructing" them in all sorts of different ways. Whether my motive at the time was acting out a will to power or simply the practical implementation of the law of gravitation – or both – is secondary. The difference with today's adult deconstructors is that I was also their builder.

What constitutes the »good, beautiful construction« of the people? What is a people anyway? That cannot be said with mathematical exactness. One can only paraphrase the phenomenon of the people in order to make it more comprehensible. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We humans have been trying to figure out an exact definition of love for ages without success, but no one will dispute its existence for that reason.

So the people is an empirical reality? Yes, of course. Just for fun, ask a Pole, Dane or Turk if they exist at all or if their ethnicity isn't just a pipe dream. You will get surprised looks.

But what are the more precise characteristics that define one people and distinguish it from another? A people can be seen as a dynamic unit of descent, language, culture

and shared history are described. It is a human form of community that is not as "tightly sweaty" as a clan or a local tribe, as Günter Zehm once wrote, but not as distantly abstract as humanity either. A good magnitude that can mediate between the individual and the human species. The downside of universalistic cosmopolitanism is the bourgeois narrowness of the small corner. With your descent, however, you touch on a particularly sensitive point in the public debate about the concept of people.

Well, to be honest, I don't see any serious public discussion about it. Here, the mainstream only agitates against a supposedly »ethnic« attitude and warns against a »biological« point of view. I myself am not a supporter of biological reductionism and see the people with Arnold Gehlen primarily as cultural beings. But the procreation of offspring is a biological fact. Or do the children come from the stork?

That is probably not claimed, but the question is whether this natural reproduction also causes an ethnic limitation. The fact is: Reproduction occurs mainly in the own group. Science speaks here of the phenomenon of “relative endogamy”. Even among cosmopolitan Germans it is around 70%, and among Turks it is much higher. So, by and large, you keep to yourself.

But isn't this ethnic lineage more and more blurred by the process of globalization? The globalists like to point this out, but it is wrong, as the French population geneticist André Langaney has stated: Less than ten percent of people today are affected by the dissolution of the previous reproductive communities. This applies above all to regions to which slaves used to be deported, such as Brazil, and the populations in the huge metropolises - but even there it is mostly not a global but rather a local melting pot, as in Asia. In the USA, too, after three hundred years of "melting pot" no new people have emerged; on the contrary, the immigrant ethnic groups have become highly segregated and formed a "salad bowl". The image of a cosmopolis with ethnically indifferent cosmopolitans that is touted as a promise today is more utopia than reality.

contrary to the growing diversity that makes up the appeal of mankind. Let a thousand flowers bloom! However, it would be completely wrong to propagate a »national ideal of purity«, which is nonsense from a historical point of view: in the ethnogenesis of the Germans between 800 and 1200 AD, significant Celtic, Romance and Slavic elements were also present in addition to the Germanic basic substance. The universalists of humanity have a real obsession with purity, in that they rant against any »national pollution« and propagate a »pure humanity«. They place their meaningless, abstract ideal above concrete reality much more than any »national racist«. No one can seriously dispute the quadrilaterality of the trapezoid, parallelogram, rectangle, and square.

Aside from that, a race also changes over time. You just mentioned a dynamic unit. Yes, culturally and ancestrally we have inflows and outflows of strangers and native. We know of ethnic splits, such as the Dutch and German-speaking Swiss, but also meltdowns, such as those of Poles and French Huguenots. In its succession of generations, a people is like a great river, which in its course receives water inflows from different sides and also gives off water to tributaries and other rivers.

Then the migration of non-European populations would not be so bad for the integrity of the people? In today's mass immigration, the problem of ethnomorphosis plays less of a role than elementary questions such as homeland, settlement privileges and social peace. In general, immigration depends on the number and cultural compatibility, with immigration in drops being unproblematic and mass immigration being viewed critically, especially if the people inflowing are not so ethnically and culturally related. Then an assimilation or integration process becomes very difficult, as we in Germany know from over forty years of experience.

At a public rally in 2010, Turkish President Recep Erdogan described assimilation as a "crime against humanity".

designated.

I even agree with that, but with the addition: If this happens compulsively. Voluntarily or naturally, assimilation is one of the rare but perfectly acceptable processes of shedding an old nationality and adopting a new one. The process of acculturation can then proceed very quickly, as a famous example shows: The German poet Adelbert von Chamisso spent his childhood and parts of his youth in his parents' castle in France before he moved to Germany. That's amazing. But despite these ethnomorphoses does a people also have certain phenotypic ranges?

There are at least certain expectations related to the whole: a Japanese national football team consisting of 100% tall, reddish-blond, curly hair with freckles would no longer be perceived as »Japanese«. Analogous to the Christian view of human beings, peoples are physical and mental units. We cannot simply separate the body from the soul, and bodies have certain manifestations. But assuming or even striving for a "phenotypic uniformity" is nonsense - there are numerous deviations in the individual and the bandwidths are very large in Germany, as is well known. Exotic splashes of color are part of the overall picture.

Parentage and phenotype are not everything anyway.

Naturally! Biologically enough, one often finds a biological point of view on the opposite side: the Antifa pleads "for the destruction of purely German heritage", Deniz Yücel describes - only half satirically - the decline in the birth rate of the German "population" as "extinction from its best side", Margot Käßmann criticizes brown genealogical lines and Wolfgang Schäuble fears inbreeding degeneration if we are not refreshed by mixing with foreign peoples - quasi "freshened up" - with which he indirectly assumes that the Germans are biologically inferior. It's all "biologism" in its purest form. On the other hand, I mentioned completely different important factors such as language, culture and shared history. A people is not just relatives, but also association, and one of the foundations of this is the desire or at least the willingness to belong. When no one is left to their own

If the people feel inwardly and willingly connected, then it has simply vanished into thin air, even if all other factors are present. That is the biggest problem today. The cultivation of a healthy national consciousness, without exaggeration or narcissistic glorification, remains a constant task.

The German left sees it very differently: they brand everything related to the people with the deadly word »völkisch«. This not only applies to the majority of today's left, the label has already penetrated deep into the legacy party cartel and the mainstream media, and is used against anyone who still has any positive relationship with the people. There is probably no article or report about me in which the attribute "völkisch" does not appear at least two or three times, usually with the connection "racist". Even this word combination is nonsense, because peoples are not races, but at best alloys of the same. Anyone who wants to get at the people's throats is basically promoting "racism" because it dwarfs people to their biological being. We see this in the USA: before their Americanization, the "whites" and the "blacks" were made up of several highly differentiated peoples with their own identities. Now they have merged into a crowd. We Europeans should avoid this descent and preserve the people.

Now her former party colleague Frauke Petry wanted to rehabilitate the word "völkisch".. From a purely etymological point of view, she was correct, because it is derived from the term »people«. Nevertheless, I do not consider this term to be happy in terms of political content and have never used it for my own position. It stands for a certain political trend at the end of the 19th/ beginning of the 20th century, the content and demands of which I do not share. Of course, our opponents know the background and therefore use the word all the more consciously and purposefully. Irrespective of this, I think the designation »people-connected« or »people-friendly« is better. It unmasks the opponents as just not connected to the people, even hostile to the people. We should confidently point out that the category "people" is the central point of orientation in our political thinking and acting. And that your own comes first. What is wrong with feeling more connected and committed to one's own people than to another? Parents do the same with their children without mutating into enemies of humanity.

We Germans have a close relationship with the term »Volk« anyway, because the Indo-Germanic origin of our name is derived from the substantive »thioda« and means nothing other than: the people.

It is the political subject of modern times. Even if the anti-national opinion cartel will run wild again: Our basic law is in principle »völkisch«, since the people as the constitutive community of the constitution have priority. The oath of those in power applies to him, even if this is constantly being broken today. According to Section 6 BVFG, a German is “anyone who professes German nationality and this commitment is confirmed by certain characteristics such as descent, language, upbringing, culture.” There we even have the despised descent again. This corresponds to the good oldius sanguinisof our citizenship law, which is now increasingly in favor of oneJus soliis softened, with which the concept of the people, which somehow cannot be eradicated, is to be redefined: Everyone who has been here on federal German territory "for a little longer or only recently" should be a German today. That's just as absurd as assuming a "right-wing extremist attitude" or something similar to a natural bond with the people. If the people, in their original meaning, are really such a terrible thing, why are there still people's parties at all? Or international law? Or the evil fact of genocide?

For the Left, their valued institution of "people's solidarity" would also have to be a nuisance. Nevertheless, she manages to work through completely abstract chimeras with hot passion. Because the left-wing pathos of universal self-determination, international solidarity and world peace avoids the concrete human being in his specific place like the devil avoids holy water. But that also shows that their relationship to the people and nation is highly emotional. They don't care about Germany at all - that's what distinguishes them from so many non-national consumer citizens. The only thing that shakes me again and again is the negative sign of their emotions, the hatred of their own country and people.

You don't think patriotism is exclusively a matter for the right? Not at all! Even as a leftist you have a common destiny with your people, as is perfectly normal in other countries – just look at Ireland, Scotland or Catalonia. We are therefore allowed

should not condemn the German left for their disturbed relationship with their own people, but should help them on the way to reconciliation, to self-friendship. It demands a lot of us: forbearance with the unforgiving, understanding with the unwise, forgiveness with the unyielding. The majority of the left thinks you and your fellow campaigners with your "patriotic quirk" need therapy, not the other way around.

That reminds me a little of the bitter humorous story about the madhouse in which the patient mistakes himself for the doctor. But we mustn't let ourselves be misled and should stick to the simple fact: Ethnicity is not a question of left or right, but something completely normal and natural beyond political rashes. The history of the Soviet Union offers one of the most striking examples: the Red Army was not least successful because the Soviet communists managed to convert it into a Great Patriotic War for propaganda purposes. The Victory Parade on Red Square in Moscow is still held under this name every May. Stalin famously said after the war that the Hitlers would come and go, but the German people would stay.

Would you describe yourself politically as a »right«? I would like to ask a counter-question: Was Frederick the Great "right"? He was a supporter of a strong state and military. Was he "left"? He improved civil rights and introduced many social innovations. So you can't get any further with such drawers. In current political rhetoric, which often enough sounds like the overture to a civil war, these terms – which, after all, date back to the time of the French Revolution – have degenerated into mere buzzwords anyway. Today, any factual argument is avoided by simply branding an alternative position as "right-wing" or "extreme right-wing". That's just as mindless as beating "the left" across the board. There's a lot of confusion when it comes to classification today: I'm classified as particularly "right-wing", when, as a patriot, I represent left-wing positions, namely emphasizing the social and communal. That's kinda funny. For a state-political stance, the particular left and right thoughts, which both contain a truth, are only elements of a higher-level generality. Only from this higher point of view, which is able

transcending one's own political origins and the associated limitations, left and right-wing positions receive their actual value and can unfold for the good of the whole. Quite apart from that, the citizens don't really care whether an opinion is »left«, »right«, »centre« or something else: they demand - justifiably - constructive solutions!

Now the political establishment is united in the so-called “fight against the right”, which is primarily directed against the AfD. It puts a lot of its energy into it. That's right: In 2017, a total of around 150 million euros in taxpayers' money is likely to have flowed into the relevant federal and state programs »for democracy«, which are primarily directed »against the right-wing«. Jobs are constantly being created, initiatives promoted and educational campaigns launched. In the end, as we can all painfully feel, there is hardly any energy left to tackle the actual problems. However, it is also an effective maneuver by the political class to distract from its own lack of imagination and concept. Their motto seems to be: our country can go to the dogs - the main thing is that we have done everything we can to prevent the further rise of the »right«! With this almost delusional fixation on the "right" one can no longer conduct sensible politics - and ultimately ends in complete inability to act. The citizens no longer have any understanding for this political witch hunt, which they experience every day on all media channels. More and more of them feel that this "fight against the right" has long since become a fight against their own bourgeois world with its values and concepts of order as the foundation of our statehood. What do you suggest as a way out?

To ease the many cramps, I recommend that all left and right - and above all the "fellowists" - read Rahim Taghizadegan's book aboutLeft & Right, which unfolds a fascinating panorama of these tendencies, which can be explained as a character for him. But beware: this can only increase the confusion! The matter is much more complicated than is commonly believed. The author therefore advises avoiding etiquette in everyday political life and treating words as words and people as people.

As Popper once said: I don't discuss terms, just content! Exactly. I therefore advocate a return to practical reason: we have to decide on a case-by-case basis, based on the substance of the matter, whether a certain position or measure will help us to move forward and solve problems or not - regardless of which political corner it comes from. And most importantly, we need to rid ourselves of Antifa conditioning and not panic when anyone wields the Nazi mace.

But given our past, isn't anti-fascism a legitimate political stance? In itself yes. However, the anti-fascism that actually exists today is a political catastrophe for our country. Through him, the original anti-totalitarian consensus of the Federal Republic of Germany - i.e. the rejection of both right-wing and left-wing totalitarianism - was abolished and replaced by anti-fascism. This happened in two big waves: in 1968 and then even more so after 1990, when the establishment moved out to nip in the bud all national impulses in the wake of reunification. This new anti-fascist consensus took the left-wing extremists on board and reduced the range of political positions that were just tolerable to a tiny left-wing ideological residue. This was accompanied by a complete shift in coordinates: what used to be the middle is now right and what used to be right is now »Nazi«. We have always wondered why we are insulted as right-wing extremists when we quote Helmut Schmidt, Herbert Wehner or the Dalai Lama - the coordination system has simply gone extremely crazy. This is not just bizarre, but also dangerous: Because of the termination of the anti-totalitarian consensus and the establishment of an officious anti-fascism, there is a risk of a totalitarian metamorphosis of free democracy, a new dictatorship. As the left-wing writer Ignazio Silone said: The new fascism will come in the guise of antifascism. To quote Herbert Wehner or the Dalai Lama – the coordination system has just gone extremely crazy. This is not just bizarre, but also dangerous: Because of the termination of the anti-totalitarian consensus and the establishment of an officious anti-fascism, there is a risk of a totalitarian metamorphosis of free democracy, a new dictatorship. As the left-wing writer Ignazio Silone said: The new fascism will come in the guise of antifascism. To quote Herbert Wehner or the Dalai Lama – the coordination system has just gone extremely crazy. This is not just bizarre, but also dangerous: Because of the termination of the anti-totalitarian consensus and the establishment of an officious anti-fascism, there is a risk of a totalitarian metamorphosis of free democracy, a new dictatorship. As the left-wing writer Ignazio Silone said: The new fascism will come in the guise of antifascism.

So you have to fight against anti-fascism today to prevent a new fascism? Yes, our political situation is that crazy. But there are also questions of aesthetics, morality and intellectual aspirations that oblige us to counteract and suppress this totalitarian presumption: today's antifascism makes people ugly, evil and stupid.

That's a tough judgement.

Hard but true! Antifa's hatred of everyone standing to its right - which really doesn't take much to say - is enormous and hate is known to make people ugly. Then the morally camouflaged immorality: your block warden mentality awakens the lowest human instincts such as snooping and slandering, apart from the primitive violence. And the ability of the Antifa, which is already embarrassingly loyal to the system, to differentiate tends to zero, they see "fascists" at work everywhere. This can only be described as stupid and dishonest.

And in view of their own claims, in your opinion, this is a moral and intellectual indictment. Incidentally, that is not just my assessment – partisan, so to speak, from the opposing side – even the classic left is appalled by what is now known as the Antifa logo, just read the enlightening anthology Antifa means air attackby the Marxists Susann Witt-Stahl and Michael Sommer. But Marxist authors today are primarily read for profit only by the "evil right-wingers." When the Federal Minister of the Interior announced the ban on the hate speech and denunciation platform "indymedia-linksunten" last summer, it was less a reason to celebrate than to be alarmed that action was taken so late against an obviously criminal network. By the way, the site is said to be active again today, without anyone from our established »super-democrats« intervening.

Conversely, can it be deduced that you are taking a lance for fascism? Not at all, fascism was a historically and spatially limited phenomenon and could only exist in Germany today as a bizarre foreign body.

But isn't the idea of re-establishing fascism as a "softer" variant of the harsh, racist Nazi ideology buzzing around in some right-wing circles? I do not agree with this. One can hardly dispute its historical impact and its serious attempts to overcome the liberalist crises of the early 20th century. But we Germans don't need a "Casa Pound movement" like in Italy, to which you allude: we have Prussia as a positive model.

Fascism can also be understood as an attempt to "Prussianize" Italy. An interesting thought. The "uncomfortable life" that Mussolini demanded of his countrymen is at least a little reminiscent of the scratchy but warming Prussian jacket Bismarck spoke of. Regardless of the rather loud-mouthed recourse to Roman imperial antiquity, the Italians, as is well known, valued fascism for the elimination of the Mafia, the draining of the swamps, the good roads and the punctual trains. The modern urbanity that is still perceptible today, for example in Turin, Florence and Rome, owes itself to a "fascist style" which, in its sober clarity, clearly shows references to the Prussian era of Schinkel, Schadow and Rauch.

Even if the categories "right" and "left" as a political classification may not be the ultimate conclusion, there are still a large number of people who consciously see themselves as such and also label themselves as such. You're welcome to do that. And I can even understand that in times when all social forces are polarized against the »right«, some people find it appealing to position themselves as »right« simply to stand out from the mainstream. I don't want to dispute the political self-understanding of anyone, not even those on the left - I'm just pleading for mutual respect. However, the unreflected acceptance of the markings usually attached by the other side harbors the danger that the scope for factual decisions is ideologically restricted. An automatic chain of associations then develops, which makes almost every statement made by the person concerned suspicious in advance. I have therefore become increasingly skeptical about identifying myself as »right« or »conservative«.

The opposing side accuses you not only of a "right-wing" but also of a "right-wing extremist" or even "right-wing extremist" political attitude. Shouldn't a line really be drawn between radical and extreme positions? First of all, one has to be clear: all the labels stuck on by political opponents are pure battle terms: they are not intended to capture reality, but to discredit an unpalatable political position. There has long been no differentiation: With the arrival of the AfD, there are no »rightwing populists« in the Bundestag like the AfD

Politicians were called some time ago, but real right-wing extremists, even "Nazis" according to Siegmar Gabriel. No need to comment further on that. The distinction between "radical" and "extreme" is nonetheless very important: in times of the need for consensus, radicalism has negative connotations, although from the Latin origin, radix = root, it stands for deep, fundamental and thorough thinking. Radicalism can be an expression of a strong ability to differentiate, which is a necessity for adults, especially those with political responsibilities. Political decision-makers should not refuse to think deeply. Politics without ultimate reason becomes shallow and pathetic. Then no verbal bragging helps to give the content-wise mild breeze a depth-conscious touch.

Have you dealt with radical political positions before? I can still remember two semesters of law in Bonn, which I followed on from my military service. At that time, Bonn was still the federal capital. Even in the first semester events, you met the future executives in suits and costumes in the Juridicum there. I felt this atmosphere to be stuffy and tried to escape it again and again. So I spent a few evenings in a bar called »Bazooka«, which is probably still the meeting place for the autonomous Bonn scene to this day. Over cheap whiskey, I discussed with committed communists the desirability and possibility of realizing their equality utopias. And later I also exchanged views with representatives of radical right-wing positions.

Doesn't that rub off on you, left and right? Thinking and discussing does not automatically mean adopting other points of view. Actually a trivial statement. But it seems necessary to me at a time when the block warden of political correctness is constantly looking over your shoulder. We must never forget: freedom of opinion and freedom of opinion-forming are inseparable. They are at the heart of an enlightened civic democracy.

But what about "extremism"? Extremism, on the other hand, is a one-sidedness, a fading out of reality. The world itself is complicated and contradictory, and so

also politics. All monocausal explanations promote conspiracy mania and ultimately lead to dangerous fanaticism. I therefore reject any form of extremism. It is undoubtedly also extremist when left-wing networks call for denunciation in order to destroy people's social existence.

Does this insight also result in the rejection of ideologies that you repeatedly emphasize? Ever since it was founded, the AfD has issued the slogan “reason instead of ideology”. Admittedly, that's not very cool, but it's completely in line with my opinion. "Understanding" sounds even better to me and would prevent many political grotesques. For example, it is linguistically impossible to describe the demand for the unlimited admission of migrants as "reasonable". However, it is possible to present them to the citizens as "reasonable". For the obviously irrational can be defended by clever demagogues with reasoning. It will never be conveyed to common sense alone.

However, he is not always right. That's correct. If its impetus is not measured against a larger picture, it can mislead us just as much as an ideology.

Aren't our political positions always based on an "ideology"? That is the question of how to define ideology. Some right-wing thinkers, with good intentions, insist on claiming their own ideology. I, on the other hand, understand it to mean the extremism of a point of view and the absolutizing of individual aspects. This leads to an extreme mental constriction and is often pregnant with unworldly social experiments. The road to terror and crime is then not very far, because reality cannot be forced into an ideological corset without violence. After the collapse of communism, Václav Havel said: The rule of ideologies is over.

The playwright Havel put an effective closing word for the last act of a drama. The tragedy continues, however, and ideology reigns once more, albeit in a far more sophisticated way than before. Without a doubt, after the loss of the eastern opponent, the

uninhibitedly enforced by the neoliberal ideology of the West. And Islamism, which is spreading at the same time, bears more traits of an ideology than of a religion. But Havel's thesis has a core of truth: ideologies, with their one-sidedness, block a free view of things and sooner or later fail both in grasping and in shaping reality. The bad thing: The attempt by people to forcibly adapt reality to the ideological brainchild inevitably leads to the failure of such hybrid attempts and is always accompanied by terrible collateral damage for the people involved.

How we experienced it in Germany with the ideologies of Communism and National Socialism... ...and will still experience it if the no less unrealistic multicultural ideology should continue to assert itself! It must be our aim to look at political questions impartially and from as many perspectives as possible in order to get out of the ideological trap or not get caught in it in the first place. Wilhelm Schmid has shown a tried and tested antidote to the dangerous dead ends that threaten from a fixation on incontrovertible truths: the early development of a "hermeneutic potential", as he calls it. Instead of leaning motionless on certainties, we should first practice our ability to interpret any situation that arises before it leaves us at a loss in our determinations.

In the sense of a perspectivism, as advocated by Ortega y Gasset, in order to keep finding new ways of interpreting reality and thus being able to assess the actual situation impartially? Exactly, a kind of keeping open to other perspectives. This should be practiced early on. It is necessary in politics alone, because without this attitude there are no long-term political perspectives that ideally combine a concrete will to shape things with a willingness to embrace alternative developments and forms. And how could something like this be made possible? The best way to do this is through a wide range of occupations with art and literature, philosophy and science - in other words, everything that is understood by classical education. In my opinion, this is also the deeper meaning of education, which is ultimately much more important than the skillful use of any computer programs. Especially we Germans have

there is a rich fund from which we can draw: The thought tradition of German idealism leads the cognitive method of the Platonic dialogues fruitfully into the modern world. So that would mean putting ideas in the place of ideologies and trusting in the power of the symbol instead of a thought pattern?

Yes, idealistic thinking protects us from extremism and one-sidedness because it tries to grasp the world in an integrative and holistic way. Hegel said: "The truth is the whole." All individual phenomena are only different moments of a larger whole, to make them absolute would lead to untruth. We should therefore also refrain from glorifying a part – such as political parties – as a whole. Even the Latin origin of the word »pars«, meaning part, indicates their limited function. In politics, since modern times, the whole has been the state, which alwaysabovemust stand up to the parties if he is not to suffer any damage to the detriment of the community.

They often criticize the ideological stubbornness of today's party politicians. But isn't this in stark contradiction to their pragmatism? The one does not exclude the other. Instead of pragmatism, however, it would be better to speak of a lack of prospects.

Don't you need sufficient flexibility in political action? Secure. Bismarck once said that he sometimes felt like someone who had to walk through a densely overgrown forest with a large wooden stick in his mouth.

A funny picture. But without a fixed point of reference, isn't it easy to get lost in the dense forest?

Correct, but for a patriot this point of reference can only be the weal and woe of their own country – and not any particular or ego interests or even a diffuse »world community«. The mandate given to politicians is actually quite simple, even if it is often difficult to implement: avert damage to the people and increase their benefits. In our parliaments, on the other hand, two extreme types dominate who pursue completely different goals: on the one hand the naive dreamers of humanity, on the other hand the »lobby representatives with a background in corruption«. Some don't see the forest for the trees and get lost in it. the others

just clear the forest to move the stick in their mouths. The normal people and the common good are neglected.

Isn't there also a positive opportunism that adapts the real goal to the circumstances of political feasibility and doesn't this contain the actual substance of the political? Under such circumstances, would any other behavior not be doctrinaire, ineffective and even anti-life? In his review of theLetters from a DeceasedPrince Pückler as not always sincerely described and in no way meant to be detrimental. So how do you stay flexible without alienating yourself from your principles? Self-denial and subtle diplomacy are hallmarks of a superior standard of living. This is not learned by itself in a generation. However, the main goal must not be lost sight of, so that in the end the means overgrow the end. The specific measures that politicians take must be decided pragmatically and not be hampered by ideological blinders, as I said earlier. "Left" and "right" answers are possible. I call this the »Bismarck spirit«.

They don't stop conjuring up old Bismarck. When the Prussian Junker became chancellor, his conservative peers pressed him to pursue conservative politics. Bismarck refused, pointing out that he was now a statesman and had towholePeople think and act - without class or ideological restrictions. Orientation towards the common good was a matter of course for him. We need that attitude again today.

The "common good" that you have repeatedly mentioned is a very vague concept that can be used everywhere for completely selfish interests. A good politician and statesman can grasp this intuitively and does not need any laboriously derived definitions from political scientists. In the seminars, surrogates like »public value« or »citizen value« are buzzing around, all of which boil down to the fact that the parties and social associations work out the common good among themselves - which is then pompously described as a »procedural compromise«.

Some political scientists leave the term because of the difficulty of a generally binding definition and also the frequent empty formula rhetoric

completely fall in politics. I think both are unwise. A narrowing down to the mere balancing of particular interests is misleading, there is definitely an independent, superordinate category of welfare. For this we need a meta viewpoint and stable coordinates for orientation. A statesman like Bismarck still possessed this sensorium for safe navigation. Of course, the view of what is understood as the common good or public interest in concreto also changes over time, but there are certain constants. Perhaps going back to Thomas Hobbes, who named four tangible points, will help us to objectify this: the defense against external enemies, the safeguarding of internal peace, the possibility of economic development and - as he emphasized: harmless - the exercise of freedom by the citizens.

That could also be in the AfD program. Correct. They are of course not the common good itself, but signposts in it. A few more could be added, such as protection and maintenance of landscape, ecology and culture, a balanced social structure. All in all, it is about the "good life" of the people. However, it is not understood in a hedonisticmaterialistic sense, but as »eudaimonía« in the ancient sense – as a meaningful, morally virtuous life. The constitutional lawyer Josef Isensee, with whom I heard constitutional law in Bonn, therefore emphasizes that the common good is less of an empirical than a moral dimension and goes beyond what is concretely feasible. Like a star that politicians should use as a guide without ever being able to reach it. Incidentally, working for the common good does not primarily involve the maintenance of private gardens, but of public parks.

Eudemonia or German people's happinessInterestingly enough, was the name of a conservative German magazine from the last years of the 18th century, which primarily dealt with the exposure of Freemasonry and Illuminati influences as the cause of the French Revolution and the Enlightenment. I would like to address another point that interests me in connection with Bismarck: politics has always been seen as a world of immorality, which includes insidiousness and deception, intrigue and betrayal. Shouldn't a person of integrity sooner or later fall by the wayside? Who today can muster the economic independence on the one hand and the physical and mental robustness of the »old man from the Sachsenwald« on the other?

In fact, politics is not a field for saints, as no one has taught us more ruthlessly than Machiavelli. It is a separate sphere in which other laws apply than those of religious or bourgeois morality. That's why JeanPaul Sartre's "dirty hands," which everyone involved in politics gets, always put me off. So does the individual "good guy," to quote Machiavelli once more, have no chance at all against the many "not good guys"? Are they dragging him into their machinations, whether he likes it or not?

My hope is tied to the old insight that power does not spoil the good character, but only makes the bad one worse. For this very reason it is all the more important that morally stable people who know how to handle the "hot" instruments of politics with certainty are responsible. Whom character and horizon allow to resist the destructive whirlpool. Unfortunately, character-deformed and questionable types are often drawn into politics, especially today. Historically, however, this was not always the case; there were also times when the political elite was reasonably intact. We have to pick up on this again.

Are you thinking of those elites who were wiped out in two wars? How could we tie in with that again? We don't even have to go back that far, because even in the early days of the Federal Republic we still find a political leadership that, in contrast to today, deserves the designation "elite." Let's think of great minds like Konrad Adenauer, Carlo Schmid, Kurt Schumacher and Thomas Dehler. But then things went downhill rather quickly – no new generation of politicians could, on average, match the level of the previous ones. It is striking that the decline of the political elite goes hand in hand with the rise of the parties. This is probably due to their strong tendency to negative selection - although there are exceptions from time to time. Fortunately, the situation is different at the local and regional level, where party influence is not as high as at the federal level and in the “non-party zones” of the administration: here one finds much more often besides a sincere interest in the well-being of the citizens also more technical competence and character integrity than with the usual gray political functionaries. That is where our natural allies will come from should we ever switch from opposition to government responsibilities.

Are you actually in your previous political activity with your own

moral claims in conflict? Of course there were and are always inner struggles that you have to go through, but in general I can still look in the mirror to this day. Anyone who manages to maintain a certain innocence in these circumstances, no matter how hard it is repeatedly put to the test, lives healthier and ultimately also has greater powers of persuasion. I am often ridiculed for my propagated “culture of trust” and even close colleagues sometimes worry that such an approach might not be misused by “evil spirits” – the writer Friedrich Franz von Unruh spoke of the “unworthy and scheming”. I don't deny the risks, but I believe that in the end the overly clever tacticians and finassiers will lose out,

But surely nobody in politics is morally infallible? Certainly, even with a solid ethos, one is not immune to the possibility that wanting and the result of wanting can fall apart under certain circumstances. In certain decision-making situations, irresolvable overlapping of interests can even lead to a situation in which one becomes »innocent guilty« in the truest sense of the word. The notorious writer Nikolaus Coudenhove-Kalergi, who is very distant from me politically, once wrote that there is no life of action without injustice, error and guilt. Those who shy away from it should remain in the realm of passivity. But after a few years of experience in party politics, I have to admit that you have to lace your boots up pretty high to get through the morass with reasonably clean legs.

Irrespective of moral questions: does this hard, sober business of politics even suit a person whom Alexander Gauland once benevolently and paternally called a "national romantic"? Romance is usually assumed to be daydreaming and unrealistic. In politics, where a clear, cold view of things is at stake, that would be out of place and downright dangerous. But the matter has a deeper dimension. The recently deceased CDU politician Heiner Geißler warned in his bookDrafts - politics in stormy timesthat the Germans must be careful not to be overwhelmed again by the folk spirit of German romanticism. At this point at the latest we should be suspicious: Why does someone from the establishment want to take us from one of the most fertile intellectually

literary epochs of our cultural history? Is it the concern about "German inwardness" that is difficult to reconcile with prescribed western rationalism? Should we therefore give up our national character? At our core, we Germans are not "smart practitioners," as the old Anglo-Saxon model demanded.

As a joke, it was once stated that the social romantics are also very German. In literary romanticism they were all gathered in one family: Bettina von ArnimsThis book belongs to the kingwith his social ideas and Achim von Arnimscrown guardwith the evocation of the ancient kingdom. If you take the thought further, the "refugees welcome applauders" have very German roots in their mental hedgehog position.

In connection with the accusation of romantics, it is argued that we must remain internationally competitive and cannot crawl into a romantic gazebo. And yet we, as a »thoughtful and inactive« people, have created the most successful and strongest economic order in the world - by the waybeforewe submitted to the Anglo-Saxon doctrine with its profit maximization and profitability ideology. With their strange romanticism, the Germans seem to have their very own source of strength, even in areas as mundane as economics. And from where do these forces flow to us?

At least not in a dreamy disregard of reality, which is always blamed on the romantic attitude. Rather, it is about a special, deeper look at the phenomena of the world. Peter von Matt once spoke of a "second pair of eyes" that you need for this and that seems to be more common in our people than in others. Romanticism is based on the old Platonic knowledge that beyond the superficial, visible world there is a more enigmatic, invisible one, in which the actual essence of things can be found. German idealism took up this thread and endeavored to transcend the merely immanent. Goethe summed it up in the beautiful words: "Everything that is transitory is just a parable."

Today, the dreamy disregard of reality seems to be more a problem for the government and its supporters than for the patriotic opposition. But one could say almost exoneratingly: We

do not escape our essence. If romanticism, with its somewhat removed, sentimental orientation, interferes in concrete political decisions, then thencanit ends disastrously. Despite these risks, I believe that the romantic deep clairvoyance of the Germans has an overall strengthening and healing effect. She has contributed to the fact that our people have always rescued themselves from the greatest catastrophes. This has been the case since the Thirty Years' War, which was also called the "German War" because of its devastating effects on the German lands.

Does the power of signs, symbols and historical myths come from the same source? Are they the seals that guarantee us such abilities? Yes. Myths are considered dusty and outdated in our country, although the Federal Republic itself cultivates a number of myths: the economic miracle, the D-Mark and the Volkswagen, later the collective agreement and the borderless Europe, recently the foreigner as savior from the burden of one's own. Despite all the rationalizations of modernity, the logos has not been able to displace the myth. We should look at myths in a very practical way as possible sources of strength and guidance that give us hope and confidence even in bad times. Just think of the Kyffhäuser myth of the Germans: As is well known, the old Emperor Barbarossa sleeps in a cave on the Kyffhäuserberg, only to wake up one day with his faithful to save the empire and restore its glory. Interesting is,

By the way, this is a legend found among many peoples. The Portuguese king Dom Sebastião I fell in 1554 in the battle of Ksar-el-Kebir in Morocco. Since his body was never found, the Iberian Peninsula waited for the longed-for one, O Desejado, until the 19th century. Certainly they are still waiting and have only changed the assignment. Now the enlightened side is blaspheming about the lack of truth content of such myths. However, the truth content is not the decisive factor, but the invigorating and identity-forming effect on people and nations - and one cannot dispute that empirically.

So it all depends on the resonances they trigger in people?

Yes, a myth can only "vibrate" if the corresponding strings are present in humans. In myths, old stories are always mixed with current longings, reality with fantasy.

Can't they also be misused by a political leadership? Of course, like every thing in this world. The GDR writer Franz Fühmann therefore spoke of a "tragedy of the myth". He warned against what the social philosopher Georges Sorel found useful: using myths for political ends by condensing them into a suggestive image. Fühmann showed the security bar to rule out misuse: a myth must be authentic, because then, in contrast to pseudo-myths, it would automatically have a "contradictory structure." What is that supposed to mean?

That a real myth always allows for different readings, i.e. it can be interpreted in different ways. In the authentic myths, the stories and characters are never fully understood. Good and evil, light and dark are not clearly assigned. The well-known German national myths with their ambiguity and sometimes abyss can be described as authentic according to this criterion - just think of the Nibelungenlied or the Faust myth.

But Arminius, for example, is a pure shining light in the eyes of the patriotic Germans. Is this figure a pseudo-myth? Well, the liberator of Germania was initially in Roman military service and was later murdered by his own relatives - the story is not that simple! It is precisely the tension in contradictions and ambiguities that make myths so attractive and prevent them from being flatly manipulated into political propaganda. In addition, they endow the myths with a potential for rejuvenation that allows them to remain alive for many generations. The Kyffhäuser legend is still widely known after almost a thousand years.

And are you also waiting for the ravens to stop circling the mythical mountain one day? One may make fun of the picture. But the longing of the Germans for a historical figure who will one day heal the wounds of the people, overcome their inner turmoil and put things in order is deep in their hearts

anchored in our souls, I am convinced of that.

According to Oswald Spengler, we Germans are a "monarchical" people regardless of whether we live in a kingdom or in a republic. There's something to it. That's probably why we're still affording a Federal President who, in his powerless form, is politically completely superfluous and only uses up taxpayers' money.

Far from myths, people today are concerned with very practical matters such as internal security, wages and transport infrastructure. Of course, these are all things that make up the reality and quality of life of the citizens, and after years of problem backlog there is a lot to be done. It is interesting that well into the 16th century, the return of the emperor was not only associated with the reestablishment of the empire and the beginning of a long period of peace, but also with social and political reforms that were very realistic. If we now descend from the ruins of the Kyffhaeuserburg to the urgent problems of our day, one can hardly dispute the topicality of this old German myth. Pure technocratism, however, will never unleash the inner strength of the people that we need for the fundamental renewal of our country. People are moved by other motives.

Max Weber spoke of a progressive "disenchantment of the world." Is there any way back? The finding is clear: the disenchanted world is not a pleasant place for a growing number of people. In our western hemisphere, where freedom is often equated with "undisturbed eating," uneasiness is growing. A ray of hope is that the natural sciences, which have been the accelerators of disenchantment, are returning to great amazement in their border areas. Even if a few stubborn "block materialists" still express disdain about the "neo-pious physicists" who have discovered the spirit in matter: natural science is increasingly no longer understood as an authority to drive the divine out of the world, but as a multiplier of mystery - every door that she pushes open with her rational explanations opens a space with new doors. That means: Even with the most precise measuring methods and analyses, the world remains a great mystery that we cannot solve with the limited resources of science. Here

only the »second pair of eyes« can help us.

And how to bridge this magical world and the real world of politics? By accepting both and integrating them into political work. Politics includes, on the one hand, the rational analysis of the situation, the sober assessment of "friend and foe", the balanced response to small and large changes, the concrete perception of the interests of the political subject - but on the other hand also the power of imagination, the design ideas, the big ones perspectives. And the claim to breathe a soul into the cold functional world by starting again, the fascinating thingsbehindto discover things. It's not just about organizing a community well. It's also about re-enchanting the world.

PARTY AND FACTION IN THURINGIA The founding of the AfD in Thuringia in 2013 was probably less romantic than stormy. How did you experience the set-up period?

At the beginning there was unbelievable enthusiasm among the competitors. It was a good feeling to meet like-minded people and not only to criticize the situation, but to work actively to overcome it. The Alternative was not initially organized as a party, but initially established itself as a citizens' movement called Wahlalternative 2013. This raised the question of how to appear effectively in elections, i.e. in particular how to get places on electoral lists. To this end, cooperation with the Free Voters in the 2013 state elections in Lower Saxony was sought as a test run. This attempt at cooperation failed, however, so that the majority saw the need to found a party. We all had stomach ache, because it was already obvious at the time that our country's predicament had something to do with the incrustations of our party democracy. Since the founding days, we in the Thuringian AfD have been aware that the party must never become an end in itself of our actions. What kind of people came together to found the national association? It was a very diverse group with a wide variety of characters and types: former GDR civil rights activists, political idealists who hoped for a major change, pragmatists from local politics and a few long-standing members of other parties who had turned away out of disappointment. And unfortunately also some soldiers of fortune, job hunters and busybodies.

How can a functional party organization be built up with such a heterogeneous group? At first there was a great spirit of optimism. In the first state election campaign in 2014, AfD members and sympathizers from Thuringia and other federal states fought side by side for the success of the alternative. Leaflets were printed at their own expense. Everyone walked their heels to distribute them. No one asked: What use is it to me?

personal? This idealism exemplifies the mood at the base of the young party at the time. However, serious conflicts were brewing at the management level, which severely impaired the ability of the entire national association to work. Did that have a negative impact on the election result?

No, despite the poor external image that the state association showed at the time due to its leadership quarrels, the AfD in Thuringia – unlike at the federal level, where it just missed entering the Bundestag with 4.7% – came to 6.2%. In any case, that was confirmation that we had struck a chord with the citizens. The internal conflicts also had their causes less on the level of content. The first functionaries of the party found themselves in a state of permanent overload: a party organization had to be set up, programmatic statements had to be formulated and an election campaign had to be organized - all on a voluntary basis in addition to the middleclass job and family obligations. That got on my nerves. Sometimes it was about personal vanity. The egomania of individuals stood in the way of the state board's ability to work in a team. This created quite a commotion with the result of resignations and resignations.

The situation calmed down when you replaced the then chairman Matthias Wohlfahrt. Welfare is always used against you by the press. Most recently, he wrote an open letter in January 2017, in which he accused you of promoting a personality cult. Criticism had repeatedly flared up on Matthias Wohlfahrt and his management style. There were arguments, quarrels and resignations. This was all the more precarious for the party as the campaign for the European elections in May 2014 soon followed after the federal elections. Against this background, many members were depressed that political work was being torpedoed by personnel issues. The party congress in June then brought about a turning point and marked the end of the »welfare era«.

So how did the “Höcke era” begin? I was elected state spokesman together with Stefan Möller in June 2014. The party conference in Stadtroda was a new beginning, everyone was tired of the constant conflicts, and so those involved tried to approach each other constructively. Incidentally, Bernd chaired the meeting

Lucke, and the success of the event is certainly due to his calm and constructive moderation.

A year later, Lucke himself was voted out as federal chairman. His fate is a bit reminiscent of Wohlfahrt, although Lucke was probably trapped in a kind of "professorial autism." Both lacked the ability and ultimately the will to integrate and put their own sensitivities aside in relation to the common cause. Frauke Petry later failed because of the resulting motto »Whoever is not with me is against me«. But both Wohlfahrt and Lucke have to be given credit for building up the party in their respective spheres of activity. How did the work of the new parliamentary group in the state parliament turn out?

It sometimes took a very long time before MPs could move into their offices. In the first few months, the entire group work took place in a room that had been converted into a large office. The group manager and his secretary maintained an office consisting of a computer and about twenty blue filing cabinets. While individual MPs worked on documents, framed by tall stacks of paper, other colleagues right next to them gave interviews to the press.

How did fellow MPs from other groups behave? From the ranks of Red-Red-Green we immediately received clear rejection and sometimes open contempt. The appearance of the leftwing deputy Engel, whose name was different at the time, is likely to be characteristic of the attitude of most members of the Left Party and the Greens. At the constitutive meeting on October 14, 2014, the woman thought it witty and funny to wear a T-shirt that clearly read “Scheiß AfD” – in English, of course. Your party comrade, Schaft, presided over the same session wearing a T-shirt with the words “No heart for any nation” printed on it, also in English. Most of the Union colleagues treated us correctly, some even expectantly to friendly. That changed with the AfD demonstrations in autumn 2015, and people now distanced themselves more clearly.

Did you misjudge the CDU back then? The pressure from above was probably too great. Mike Mohring finally got the

– criticized by himself! – Subject to the »Merkel Tauber Doctrine«, which has committed the Union to a total blockade and exclusion of the AfD since those days in 2014. At the beginning of its parliamentary work, the alternative first had to find a consistent position on everything, including parliamentary processes. When would you say the parliamentary group was fully operational? In fact, in the beginning there were endless debates about all sorts of things. The Thuringian lion alone, for example, cost us many hours of valuable working time.

Now you're joking!

No seriously! During the election campaign, we accidentally used the version of the Thuringian lion for a leaflet, which only authorities are allowed to use. For this we were reprimanded. Of course, we didn't want to repeat the mistake and racked our brains about whether and in what form the use of the Thuringian heraldic animal would be permissible, for example for the business cards of the members of parliament. The topic is not as profane as it sounds. Because it contains a heartfelt response to the heartless confession of the aforementioned inscription on Mr. Schaft's jersey. The use of the Thuringian lion on our printed matter is intended as an unmistakable commitment to the country, for the prosperity of which we want to work effectively in Parliament.

But you didn't just invest your energy in business cards and the color of pens during the build-up phase? No, fortunately not. Political and tactical questions largely determined our discussions in the parliamentary group. For a long time, for example, we discussed whether or not we should fill the post of deputy speaker of the parliament that is due to us. How did it come about that you had to discuss this?

The AfD started in Thuringia with the demand to streamline the state and also to exploit financial savings potential in parliament. Now a sign should be set that we will follow our words with deeds and would forgo an office that would be provided with additional remuneration from taxpayers' money. We decided that too, which is why the AfD faction does not have a deputy

President of Parliament. Today I have mixed feelings about that decision, because with the seat on the Presidium we also gave up a seat on the Council of Elders and cut ourselves off from important parliamentary information channels. There were tough debates in particular about the parliamentary group statutes or the question of the composition of the committee - the usual topics that parliamentary groups have to deal with, among other things. In addition, there was the search and training of suitable employees such as specialist consultants, office workers and press officers. In the spring of 2015 we were largely complete and able to work. At a time when new conflicts were breaking out...

Do you now mean that colleagues who later left the parliamentary group or were expelled? Yes, exactly. In your opinion, how did this come about?

In the course of building up the state party and parliamentary group, a dispute broke out with MPs Gentele, Helmerich and Krumpe. These disputes were never about political content, even if the media created a different image in public. The separation that followed was solely due to the personality and behavior of the colleagues concerned. The conflict surrounding Bernd Lucke and his supporters in the federal party, which was escalating at the same time and which was also presented as a confrontation between “liberals” and “national conservatives” in the AfD, had an aggravating effect. Exactly this legend was picked up in the Thuringian media and served rhetorically by Gentele, Helmerich and Krumpe by trying to defame me personally. I am afraid,

And how was the matter resolved? Since the main problem with the three deputies was their inability to cooperate, the parliamentary group took disciplinary measures after a long waiting game, which finally led to their expulsion or resignation. While Gentele disappeared into the political obscurity, Helmerich became a member of the SPD parliamentary group and has since acclaimed the left-green government policy - an interesting career. Jens Krumpe has to be credited for being a non-attached member of parliament

continues to try to transport his political hobbies to parliament.

Is there a lesson you have learned from these events? At the time, I probably tried for too long to act as a balance and mediator, even when other group colleagues had long since run out of patience and the argument lay like mildew over the group. Here I became a victim of my profession. As a teacher, I came from a world that focuses on young people's development and is usually characterized by a culture of trust. Because of this professional character, I plead for talks and mediation offers. That in itself is not wrong. But it probably would have been better to pull the emergency brake earlier, according to the motto: Better an end with horror than endless horror. Whatever the case: after the three troublemakers left, there was a real sigh of relief in the group, including among the employees. The paralyzing nightmare that had weighed on the faction for months was suddenly gone, and the mood suddenly brightened. Now we could turn our full attention to the content work. Let's get to the content of the work of the Thuringian AfD parliamentary group. What did and does this look like in concrete terms?

We tabled a large number of motions and parliamentary initiatives and from the outset engaged in constructive opposition work - albeit with clear lines and without the "geeing around" that we have seen in the Union faction for three years.

What substantive accents have you set in the context of parliamentary work? There is a wide range with many individual facets: From our lawsuit against the government decree of a blanket winter deportation ban for rejected asylum seekers who are obliged to leave the country, to a large number of applications for the state budget to our draft law to include German as the national language in the Thuringian constitution. In connection with the municipal and district reform that the Ramelow government tried to push through, which has now failed for the time being - against the resistance of most mayors, district administrators and local politicians, not to mention the population - we have presented a draft law that includes a constitutionally mandatory referendum a reorganization of

national territory. Since the topic of asylum policy is so burning on the nails of the citizens, we have made our positions more concrete and created a comprehensive concept that takes into account all levels of federal, state and local government. I am not aware that a parliamentary group in Germany has submitted a comparable programmatic paper on the subject. Doesn't it show up despite the successful distribution of a undoubtedly wellfounded brochure about Islam, which the parliamentary group officer Dr. Michael Henkel wrote that the external impact of the Thuringian faction in the media is very limited?

In fact, all of our efforts in Parliament have received too little attention, especially in the print media, due to the distorted or hostile or simply non-existent reporting. That's why we hold citizen dialogues, where we can talk to local people about the current situation and our positions. We started with this in August 2015 in Suhl, followed by a whole series of other events, for example in Arnstadt, Eisenberg, Gera or in Mühlhausen. This met with a great deal of interest from the general public. In the meantime, we have held citizen dialogues with 200 to 300 interested parties even in small villages, including outside of election campaigns. At the same time, however, new challenges arose.

Which were they? The »Thuringia media group«, which has a virtual monopoly in the newspaper and distribution business in the Free State, put business cooperation with us on hold. She no longer printed event advertisements and stopped distributing our parliamentary group newspaper. On the other hand, with the backing of left-wing green politicians, the extremist groups of the so-called "Antifa" began to threaten or intimidate landlords and innkeepers who made their premises available to us for the civil dialogues. These totalitarian groups had some success with this, but in the end they couldn't prevent us from holding our citizens' dialogues.

How did you finally manage to make up for the boycott by the local press? We were able to do this through our strong presence on the Internet and through the

Compensate for the distribution of flyers quite well.

Were the large demonstrations that the Thuringian AfD has been holding since the summer of 2015 also a reaction to the fact that the AfD parliamentary group was not gaining the public resonance it was looking for?

In the course of the escalating immigration crisis, we needed another extra-parliamentary platform in addition to the citizens' dialogue, in order to bring our position to the public and at the same time to mobilize the citizens against this law-breaking policy. For me there is no doubt that our demonstrations in Erfurt have contributed to the upswing that the AfD has had in opinion polls nationwide since the autumn and has also led to the good state election results in Rhineland-Palatinate, Saxony-Anhalt and Baden-Württemberg . What has been your best experience so far in the Erfurt state parliament?

That we as a parliamentary group have also created a stage for the presentation of visual arts. It was a particular pleasure for me to be able to open a public exhibition of watercolors by the German-Russian artist Hermann Graudin, who died in 2005, in our parliamentary group in May 2016.

What interim assessment would you draw after three years of parliamentary practice?

The previous record as an opposition faction is ambiguous for me. On the one hand, Parliament is a forum where the AfD faction has shown that it is capable of sensible political work. You can see from our many parliamentary initiatives what we are doing and, above all, what we would do differently. We can be proud of what we have achieved so far. Almost a thousand “minor questions”, more than a hundred draft laws and plenary motions by the end of 2017 speak for themselves. On the other hand, however, we must also admit that a large part of our efforts in Parliament are simply lost. By that I do not mean that we will ultimately be overruled by the majority, that is part of the parliamentary game. It is the cloak of silence that is spread over us.

What do you mean by that? In the Thuringian state parliament, the rules of procedure for selfdeliberation requests in the committees require the approval of one

third of the MPs. As a rule, our motions are therefore often not even on the agenda, which is why important topics are then hardly ever dealt with. In this way, we cannot force the government factions or the government to take a position on our content-related ideas or questions. This makes constructive opposition work more difficult. The fact that the rules of procedure are in need of reform at this point has also been confirmed by the other parliamentary groups for years. However, nothing has happened so far.

If a change in these conditions is obviously not to be expected in the short term, how do you intend to prevent your energies from being wasted in windmill battles? We will continue to increase direct contact with people across the country. We don't want to waste all our energy in committees and meetings. What is decisive for me in politics is whether a sensible measure or change is ultimately implemented, i.e. whether it reaches the citizen. Everything else is ultimately smoke and mirrors. That is why we are striving for government responsibility in Thuringia in the long term.

But you still have a long way to go through the dense forest with your stick in your mouth. The AfD currently has eight of the 91 members of the state parliament, two others who are now non-affiliated have moved in via the AfD state list. You are still a long way from taking over the government. A lot has changed politically since the last election in Thuringia in 2014, not only at state level, where we were able to achieve the second-best result of all state associations with 22.7% in the 2017 federal election, but nationwide, Europe-wide, even worldwide. Just think of Brexit, the American presidential election, the entry of the AfD into the Bundestag, the withdrawal of the globalist, anti-people Soros Foundation from Hungary. There is a mood of change in the air that stretches from the USA to Europe. No solution can be expected from the established forces, only the escalation of the problems.

Thuringia has according to the lastluck atlasthe Post the largest increase in life satisfaction nationwide. The well-behaved children of the country are obviously quite happy with the red-red-green policy.

The informative value of such surveys must be strongly doubted, if only for statistical reasons. If then still a political intention

on top of that, as is evident from the study mentioned, it all becomes waste. Interestingly enough, when it comes to the work factor, i.e. a classic left-wing domain, satisfaction has not increased - here Thuringia is the sad tail light.

But you wouldn't say that Red-Red-Green is wreaking havoc on Thuringia either? During his reign, Ramelow got his choleric streak under control and is visibly enjoying the office of prime minister to the fullest. He travels through the country and says "Greeting August" in all directions. Otherwise, the State Chancellery shied away from the political risk in order not to endanger Thuringia as a blueprint for a red-red-green power constellation at the federal level, which, however, failed miserably in the last federal election. Some obscure ideological projects are nevertheless implemented very purposefully, with negative consequences: The "Buntes Thüringen" campaign announced by Ramelow in his government statement shortly thereafter led to the already mentioned "winter deportation stop". Another ideological re-education project is the »State Program for Democracy, Human Rights and Tolerance«, which, characteristically, was brought into being under the aegis of the CDU, but was financially significantly increased under the new government – 4.75 million euros have been budgeted for 2017. Behind the euphonious name is a permanent monetary inflow for left-wing and left-wing extremist projects and associations as well as dubious networkers who unabashedly graze on taxpayers' money at universities and colleges and want to make abstruse theories heard. The complete political one-sidedness of this state program is already evident in the fact that religious or left-wing extremism plays no role, it is once again exclusively against the »right«. With a small inquiry we were able to clarify that between 2010 and 2014 around 40,000 euros in tax money were pumped into demonstration tourism by left-wing groups in Thuringia, whose objective was often the unlawful obstruction or prevention of registered and approved rallies. A further indication of this alarming development is the establishment of a so-called "Documentation Office for Human Rights, Fundamental Rights and Democracy" which has the task of checking the public and semi-public statements made by Thuringian citizens and even calling for denunciations.

As a group, what have you done about it?

Although the project could not be overturned in a special plenary session of the state parliament that we called, we did manage to disclose the state government's questionable awarding practices and the personal entanglements. In addition, it became public that this new institution can neither be controlled by the state audit office nor by the state parliament. With more than 200,000 euros a year, the Free State will in future maintain an institution that will be managed by the Amadeu Antonio Foundation, the foundation whose board of directors is former IM Anetta Kahane. In my opinion, this "documentation center" has therefore rightly been called the private Stasi 2.0.

You decided at the beginning of 2017 of the year not to run for the Bundestag. In 2019 there are state elections in Thuringia. This begs the question: do you want to be successful in state politics in the long term, or are you ultimately more attracted to federal politics?

I will do what is most beneficial to my country. The fact that I basically have to leave this question open is due to the dynamics of current political developments. But I believe that Thuringia, this wonderful country in the middle of Germany, will still play a very special role in the future of our fatherland.

Do you see Thuringia as a model case? As an example of how a country preserves its character in an ideologized society? During the SED dictatorship, the Thuringians were better able to fend off the loss of substance than other regions of the former GDR, such as Brandenburg or Mecklenburg, where the comrades had less resistance to their campaigns to fear. That can be good. However, it should not be underestimated what this is related to. The destruction of the livelihood of the independent farmers in the agrarian northern districts through the land reform has deserted the supporting stratum of society there and made this polarity reversal possible in the first place. A moderate industrialization, which is always based on a proud craftsmen, Thuringia - similar to the neighboring Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt - has preserved a differentiated structure that provides retreats in difficult times. On this territory, the small German state once threw its wildest flowers. It was lined up here little residence town after little residence town. This much-criticized particularism also has positive sides,

then prevent the spiritlessness of an overly strong centralism. Everything is represented here at the same time and side by side. Let's hope that this good mix will also prove its worth when new demands are made on people.

The geopolitical thinker Jordis von Lohausen once wrote that in politically bleak times at the state level, in addition to the temporary "retreat to books and scores," there is also the possibility of staying within reach of one's own homeland. Yes, German particularism and provincialism are a weakness when it comes to major national tasks, i.e. where the central pooling of forces is required. In times of mere survival and simple preservation of substance, however, this weakness is a strength - like a leaky ship that closes the bulkheads and thus prevents sinking. A political change has recently become apparent in Austria, and the central German refuges, the legendary "dark Germany", could also acquire elementary importance as the core of our nation's survival. In any case, we will do everything we can to get out of this ardor of life, which has lasted for forty years under communist tutelage and which even the sharp, cold wind of the subsequent capitalist restructuring could not

POPULAR OPPOSITION AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT

But before the buried life force can flare up, there will still be a purgatory, which we can only know if it purifies us or consumes us when we have passed through it. The mass immigration of nonEuropean peoples and the decline of the community are driving the country and its people into an existential crisis. Yes, if we don't stop the violent transformation of the traditional nation state into a multicultural immigration society soon, we are actually threatened with a cultural meltdown in Germany and Europe. You do not consider this to be a natural phenomenon and thus assume that this movement was deliberately controlled?

That's right, because the policies of those in government are not only carried out with massive violations of the law - as with the opening of the border in autumn 2015 - but also against the will of the majority of Germans. Or have we ever been asked by those responsible whether we want the mass settlement of non-European populations and the associated Islamization of our country at all? It is sold to us out of the constraints of a “natural change”, but that is anything but “natural”: eighty kilometers east of Berlin, the multicultural experiment miraculously ends – because the Polish people and their political leaders do not want it. So, alternative options do exist.

On March 11, 2016, the publicist Frank Böckelmann stated in an interview for the ZDF culture magazineaspectsasked the rhetorical question in the finest Dresdner dialect: »If a million people come in without being asked and we are only extras and maybe several million more come, isn't that also a form of violence? Or not'?". Basically, of course, the ruling political class also knows how unpopular their immigration policy is among the people. Therefore, since the beginning of the settlement of foreigners in Germany, the means of embellishment and disguise have been used in order not to arouse too much resistance. First

the Germans were promised that the guest workers would only stay here temporarily, after family reunification and the consolidation of their residence status, their integration into our culture was announced, when this was not followed, the citizens were at least assured that we were not an immigration country and now we ended up right there. Manfred Kleine-Hartlage has therefore described the foreigner and immigration policy of the Federal German government as continued fraud.

Unfortunately, the established media also participate in this. A scientific analysis recently carried out by the Otto Brenner Foundation, the Hamburg Media School and the University of Leipzig evaluated more than 30,000 reports from regional and national newspapers for the period from February 2015 to March 2016. Yes, I know about this study. The authors found a frightening tendency to influence popular education in the sense of Merkel's migration and multicultural policy. Incidentally, the concept of a multicultural society that is unanimously propagated today by the political and media establishment is also a lie: because not all ethnic groups are granted the right to develop and protect their own interests: the native Germans are even denied it! The same applies in the other European countries. Multiculturalism in the western world does not aim for the coexistence of equal cultures in a country, as the Australian behavioral researcher Frank Salter, who worked for many years at the Max Planck Institute in Andechs, found, but rather the minority and marginalization of the autochthonous peoples.

Despite this “veiling and embellishment”, more and more people in the country feel the same way and express it in different ways, for example by demonstrating or protest voting. Exactly, and the political class is now countering this increasing resistance with its moral overkill capacities by reducing all the events related to the current "refugee crisis" to individual human fates. This is intended to depoliticize the whole problem and limit it to a purely humanitarian dimension. Consequently, there may then only be purely ethical solutions, i.e. without long-distance assessment and without regard to the protection and livelihood concerns of one’s own population. In fact, however, there is no moral obligation to selfdissolution.

But there are also various factual and economic arguments for immigration: lack of skilled workers, demographics, pension gap. They are included to secure your own point of view, but they are all pretend and easily refuted. The population scientist Herwig Birg, for example, has repeatedly pointed out that we cannot permanently solve our demographic problems with immigration. The humanitarian argument is the most effective anyway: the harrowing image of a dead child lying on the beach is a thousand times more powerful than any statistics about a shortage of skilled workers or a declining population. At the beginning of our conversation you said that you were not indifferent to human destinies.

Of course not! The real humanitarian catastrophe consists in the fact that the real refugees have become practically invisible. So those who not only have a legitimate claim to our help, but whom we must help for our own sake, so that we do not suffer damage to our souls. We hardly notice these fates under the whirlpool that has formed from the social-romantic glorifications of the sensitive philanthropists and the cheeky demands of the robust oriental and African soldiers of fortune. For me, this includes, for example, the corpse of the pregnant African woman who died in the oil spill below deck of one of the floating wrecks after she was just good enough to send a radio message to the Italian coast guard. "Survival of the fittest" in all its good-human brutality! What is being done here by the dreamy assistants of the smugglers with their obsessive tunnel vision is human-made hell. The first commandment of humanity would have been to finally put a stop to the hapless joint venture of naïve do-gooders, the Calabrian mafia and African human traffickers.

So you think that the empathy and helpfulness of the European peoples is being abused here? Yes, that is what is perfidious about the migration project. Of course, we must not generalize and close our hearts. It is always a matter of a reasonable weighing of interests. In case of doubt, the decision for a temporary refuge will be made in order not to erroneously reject anyone.

However, all precautions against possible fraud should be rigorously exhausted in advance. And this is exactly where the ethicists are struggling: Due to ever new special and exceptional regulations - for example a winter deportation stop in Thuringia, although the sun is shining in the Orient or the refusal of federal politicians to reunite the families of the Syrian refugees in their largely pacified homeland - you will find on the "slippery slope" of their naïve demands, as the moral philosopher Konrad Ott put it, and all legal restrictions on the immigration and residence of foreigners are being lifted. But if we don't put a stop to the mass misuse of our humanity and willingness to help, those actually in need of protection will be crushed under the feet of oncoming economic migrants. The attitude ethicists turn out at the

end up being upside down

Mephistophelic power that always wants good and yet creates evil.

The advocates of migration argue that the unscrupulous Europeans, as colonial powers, exploited the countries of origin and prevented them from developing independently. The bad conscience of the wealthy Europeans towards the poor of Africa, for whose fate they are supposed to be to blame, functions here as a counterpart to the German Nazi club. In many places, the liberation of the African colonies from their mother countries was anything but a success story. Most countries have descended into civil war and corruption, which in most cases cannot simply be explained as a legacy of colonialism. The population, which previously had to come to terms with the European landowners, is now at the mercy of the terror of clan bosses and the greed for exploitation of international corporations. Perhaps the greatest guilt of the colonists is their often unfighting retreat from responsibility for the landscapes they cultivated. There are some diplomats with Africa experience like the former German ambassador in Tanzania Guido Herz, who call for the failed development aid to be stopped and remind them of the fact that our interests should also be taken into account to a greater extent when providing financial support. They are also aiming to curb immigration, because the increase in prosperity in the underdeveloped countries paradoxically increases the migration movement as long as the gap to Europe remains. The truly poor do not even have the means to make the journey to the blessed continent. They are also aiming to curb immigration, because the increase in prosperity in the underdeveloped countries paradoxically increases the migration movement as long as the gap to Europe remains. The truly poor do not even have the means to make the journey to the blessed continent. They are also aiming to curb immigration, because the increase in prosperity in the underdeveloped countries paradoxically increases the migration movement as long as the gap to Europe remains. The truly poor do not even have the means to make the journey to the blessed continent.

But with this closure, wouldn't a new colonial system be established that would reverse the emancipation of the African states? In any case, most of the development aid money is siphoned off by a small upper class, who use it to finance a feudal, luxurious lifestyle, while a large part of the population remains in poverty. Colonization shouldn't be looked at exclusively negatively either: Basically, culture is always the result of successful colonization. But after the conquest, efficiency, self-exploitation must become the basis of prosperity and not the exploitation of the colony and its people. This was the case with the German colonization in the east as well as with the Prussian colonization in the interior. The reputation that the Germans enjoy among countless people in Africa, America and Asia, who are not achieved by the narratives of Western sociologists and political scientists, is based on an increase in prosperity, which grew out of the spirit and practical ability of the Germans between 1850 and 1918. That remains unforgettable for the people from Baghdad to Zanzibar.

And the legend of the wonderful multiplication of bread, which is apparently possible in this country, is partly based on the naïve transfiguration of this fact, which is in itself pleasant. This modern myth is now magnetically drawing the masses from the south and east to our country. In so doing, they should remember the stories of their fathers and consider what was said of the brass city of Iram in the Arabian Nights. It is often ignored that the prosperity of Europe and the West was the result of a great, painstaking effort based on renunciation and a hard work ethic. In combination with an exceptional technical innovative ability, they made the high standard of living of the Europeans possible. However, this phase of prosperity covers only a short historical period since the middle of the last century. Hardly anyone is aware of this today: In Germany, before industrialization, there were regular famines and only two to three generations before us, people still lived in extremely modest circumstances! Today's economic refugees are obviously not ready or not able to take this hard, deprived path, but want to reap the rewards without effort.

Prosperity and material wealth have their own

disaster symptoms. At best, the aliens trade their misery for our misery. In the worst case, both intensify into an insoluble chaos, a complete mess in which Munchausen can no longer get hold of a forehead and every movement only digs the whole thing deeper into the ground. Yes, we fight in west with the problems one Affluent neglect. I don't mean to long for new poverty, but a little more modesty and orientation towards immaterial values would be beneficial for us. However, the colonialist guilt complex of Western Europeans does not apply to the peoples of Eastern Europe.

No, fortunately not. The states in the east and south-east of our continent are relatively young. The feeling that their self-determination is endangered and the desire for national self-assertion have remained active. This explains why these countries do not allow themselves to be blackmailed into this self-abandonment. The almost unbearable arrogance of the West German politician caste, with which they venom against all states that refuse to dissolve themselves, reveals a new thinking about superiority towards the supposedly backward. It is a kind of "anti-national nationalism" that Dieter Borchmeyer warned against in his opulent work on the German character. For me, the Eastern Europeans are the true defenders of Europe today! One can only hope that they will stand up to the guilty, decadent and selfassertive Western Europeans can keep. For if we let things continue as before, future peoples will walk through our desolate city halls, train stations, museums, theaters and swimming pools and marvel at how a society so powerful, so ingenious and prosperous has been wiped out.

Today, mass immigration mainly comes from the Islamic culture. Around five million Muslims are said to already be living in Germany. What is your personal opinion on Islam? Like the Pegida movement, do you see him as a threat to the West? Islam is a very complex subject, as it involves religious, historical, geopolitical and domestic issues. I am not a religious expert and cannot judge the theological content. Looking at history, I see the traditional Islam defense of the

Christian Europe, the Turkish wars in the Balkans, but also the close cooperation with Muslim powers and forces during the German Empire and also during the time of the Third Reich. The good reputation of the Germans in the Orient - in contrast to that of the English, French and today also the Americans - actually forms a solid basis for a possible modus vivendi, but the intransigent foreign policy of the USA, to which we seem to be slavishly chained, prevents that.

You mean the »war on terror«, which could also be interpreted as the »war against Islam«? Yes, but the USA is pursuing a two-pronged policy, the consequences of which we Europeans in particular have to suffer from: On the one hand, the penetrating interference and destabilization policy in the Islamic world fueled by the neocons and hawks, which leads to state collapse, chaos and religious fanaticism. And on the other hand, the deliberately promoted Muslim mass immigration to Europe, which breeds conflicts within society and threats of Islamic terror.

What do you suggest to get out of this bind? We must respond to the dual strategy of the American government and its backers with an equally dual response, preferably in alliance with the other European states: First, exit from the international "anti-Islam coalition" and constructive cooperation with Muslim countries - depending on the national one interests. The most important thing is the long-term reconciliation of the war and terror-affected Orient, in order to offer the people there a perspective on life and to reduce the pressure to migrate. And secondly, a clear, consistent prevention of the threatening Islamization of Germany and Europe. That means: an immediate stop to uncontrolled mass immigration, clear enforcement of our legal system and system of values, repatriation of migrants who cannot be integrated, Drying out Islamic terrorism in the country and stopping the influence of foreign governments on internal German affairs, as Turkey in particular is doing directly and various Arab states are doing indirectly. All without prejudice or hatred of Islam as a religion and with due respect for a culture that is foreign to us. These measures correspond to reasons of state with their responsibility towards their own people, who generally have a rather negative attitude towards Islam and its culture - not only because of the heinous acts of the IS. All without prejudice or hatred of Islam as a religion and with due respect for a culture that is foreign to us. These measures correspond to reasons of state with their responsibility towards their own people, who generally have a rather negative attitude towards Islam and its culture - not only because of the heinous acts of the IS. All without prejudice or hatred of Islam as a religion and with due respect for a culture that is foreign to us. These measures correspond to reasons of state with their responsibility towards their own people, who generally have a rather negative attitude towards Islam and its culture - not only because of the heinous acts of the IS.

With all due respect to local customs, if they still exist at all, it gets bizarre at the latest when the integration test is supposed to consist of eating a pork schnitzel, consuming alcoholic beverages, loose hair and a miniskirt. What do you mutually consider decent and reasonable? I find it wrong, presumptuous and also completely unrealistic to want to "Westernize" a world religion with 1.6 billion followers in order to make it compatible with our European norms and values through a kind of reinterpretation and "re-education". This does not correspond to the traditional German respect for the different. The lack of enlightenment complained about by liberal critics of Islam is an internal matter of the Muslim world in which we should try not to get involved. In any case, Islam with its many currents such as Wahabism, Salafism, Sunni or Shiaism, Sufism and other orientations is not a unified bloc, on the contrary: most Muslims die from the murderous violence of other Muslims.

The old Prussian formula "Everyone according to his Façon" also applies to the Islamic culture. Yes, but this one has its own geographically definable space. It has changed and shifted again and again over the course of history, but Central Europe is not traditionally one of them. If we want to see fewer hijab or burqa-wearing women in our streets and squares, then I think it is the wrong way to drive these women out of their dress habits, but to think about reducing the number of Muslims living here. That would respect the respective cultural peculiarities without making one's own country a place of alienation. But it's not just about dress codes: do we Europeans want to raise ourselves up to be better Koran exegetes and explain to Muslims what they have to believe and in what form? We hardly have any religious references ourselves.

And what do you propose to secularized Europeans in this situation? We can make it unmistakably clear to the Muslims that their religious way of life does not fit our western European culture and that we want to live differently than according to the Sharia. If we don't want to Islamize our societies, we don't need to discuss complicated theological questions and refute "false positions", we should

solve the root problem of immigration. So basically we can skip the whole Islam debate: If we didn't have the masses of Orientals and Muslims in Europe and Germany, we wouldn't have a fundamental problem with Islam either.

To put it bluntly in Pirinçci jargon: it's the »Kuffnucke« that are the problem and not Islam, the »Kanacken« and not the Koran? Well, those are your words, not mine. In addition to the asocial, loudmouthed and impudent types you are probably referring to, there are also a large number of extremely likeable, friendly and well-mannered Muslims with whom one can certainly imagine living together over the long term – if our legal system and dominant culture are fully recognized . However, those who, like the migration commissioner of the last federal government, Aydan Özoğuz, cannot even recognize a specifically German culture beyond the language and then unabashedly let themselves be financed with German tax money have really lost nothing in our country. Of course, you can't force the locals to deal with completely alien sensitivities, as if they didn't have enough problems themselves.

But with the Muslim immigrants we are importing all the conflicts and upheavals that exist in the Orient and the Islamic culture. In this way, the "distant sensibilities" bring us very close to our own skin. This is precisely the point that we cannot accept. If we are bothered with foreign conflicts in our own country, it is our right to send the conflicting parties in question back to their region of origin and thus to give a "simple answer to difficult questions" - questions that would not even have been asked in our country without immigration . Only because of the presence of a large number of Muslims in Europe and Germany do we have to deal politically with Islam and the numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Could it be that the Europeans have lost their national ties as well as their religious ones - completely independent of the immigration of foreign peoples? Yes, the foreigners living in our country are definitely not in favor of it

responsible that we can no longer do much with our own culture and our traditions. Rather, it is a process of self-alienation that was primarily driven by the decadent western lifestyle. It would be dishonest to blame these internal problems on migrants. Here we actually fail to integrate: Due to our own lack of identity, we are not only too weak to reject the foreign, but also to integrate it into our own. How should a young Muslim in our country integrate? In a society that has forgotten or rejected its own cultural and religious traditions?

Officially, the western values are given. This inflated foam of values is only supposed to cover up the deep hole of lost identity. But that doesn't convince migrants who have been socialized in completely different cultural-religious milieus. Integration – or better: acculturation – is in any case a very complex and difficult process that is not completed with a superficial commitment to the Basic Law, but requires the acceptance of a system of values and standards that is perceived as alien and that goes far beyond the prevailing legal system. The migrants from nonEuropean cultures are torn souls themselves, because they are under constant tension between the western outside world and the Muslim inner world. But due to the lack of pressure to integrate and the low attractiveness of the autochthonous culture, the majority of them have decided on their original identity – for which one cannot really blame them at all. This is how acculturating immigration turns into invasive immigration, as the philosopher Rudolf Brandner noted. Instead of an enrichment of European and German culture, we experience its suppression through Islamization, Orientalization and Africanization. So tricky is the situation we find ourselves in as a result of the multiculturalists' insane social experiments! Instead of an enrichment of European and German culture, we experience its suppression through Islamization, Orientalization and Africanization. So tricky is the situation we find ourselves in as a result of the multiculturalists' insane social experiments! Instead of an enrichment of European and German culture, we experience its suppression through Islamization, Orientalization and Africanization. So tricky is the situation we find ourselves in as a result of the multiculturalists' insane social experiments!

Do you see this loss of identity as a natural or a consciously controlled process? No one can abolish a people against their will. So it would be too cheap to shift the responsibility onto obscure foreign powers. Rather, the old European universalism and cosmopolitanism has combined with a deep-seated guilt complex and extremes into an ideology of selfabandonment. Regardless, I am convinced that behind the soft humanitarian phraseology of our ruling classes

hides a tough political program that exploits the latent masochism of the Europeans for evil purposes: the denationalization of the European peoples and the transformation of the previous nation states into multi-ethnic entities. We must therefore lift the lying veil that has covered the whole discussion with the invocation of the humanitarian catastrophe in the context of the wave of refugees. It is only superficially about protection and help. In principle, according to the ideas of our rulers, who belong to a cohesive transatlantic political elite, all people who have managed to get to Europe and Germany should stay here and as many more as possible should come - preferably from non-European countries. Few are as honest and blunt as the author Ulrike Guérot: “Away with the borders. Bring on the refugees, no matter how many, no matter where they come from.« But this is a demand that is controversial even in the mainstream.

It is only the radical consequence of a fatal basic conviction that the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut summed up in the soberingly drastic words: We Europeans are nothing! We have no origin, no history, no established culture. We don't have a country either, at least not for us, because every person in the world is free to settle here. That's why we don't need borders.

It is repeatedly claimed that our long borders cannot be protected anyway. This is nonsense. The possibility of effective border security for Germany and Europe is confirmed by all experts, most recently by the Austrian Chief of Staff Othmar Commenda. Anything else would be the task of any statehood, one of the basic elements of which is a functioning border regime.

If it's all so simple, why isn't it happening? I didn't say it was a simple matter. Securing the European continent, which is not exactly geographically favored for this, requires well thought-out logistics and appropriate resources. However, the effort is justifiable in relation to the migration costs. The decisive factor is the will to protect our external borders, then we can act decisively and in a targeted manner. But that is exactly what the responsible political leadership does not have. What for? The

The conclusion of established nihilism is: whoever is nothing and has nothing can lose nothing. The Europeans' fear of foreign infiltration and displacement is therefore completely unfounded.

"Having nothing" is not entirely true: what about wealth? Well, the inner emptiness has been crammed full of all kinds of material junk by our ruling naysayers so that the souls get a bit of a feeling of fullness. We will probably lose that now in the course of the alimony of millions of new social cases.

But they are more concerned with being than with having. And this being is now being redefined by the globalists: We should become abstract, pure human beings, endowed with universal human rights - if possible without being soiled by any ethnicity and national traditions. A very special kind of »ethnic cleansing«, if you will! I have already mentioned where a real "purity madness" can be found, which is always attributed to the forces of the people. Humanity sounds so beautiful and noble and doesn't really oblige you to anything, because the responsibility would primarily relate to the annoying neighbor from my specific community.

What do you think it all boils down to? The Belgian ancient historian David Engels predicts that in twenty to thirty years, much of Europe will be ravaged by civil wars if things continue as they have been. He draws parallels to the end of the Roman Republic: like Rome then, today's Europe is characterized by a strange mixture of cosmopolitanism, self-doubt, materialism and a bad conscience. The continent will slip into a chaotic situation and go through a phase of confusion until at some point a spiritual and political potency will restore order and peace. It is foreseeable that, in view of the continuing mass immigration of parts of the population that can hardly be integrated, the social upheavals will run along ethnocultural fault lines. Then we get exactly the political "ethnicization effect",

These gloomy scenarios were already predicted by the CIA in 2008, and its then boss Michael Havden warned urgently again some time ago of the consequences of a mass settlement of non-Europeans

migrants. It is therefore our most urgent task to prevent such scenarios. We must counter the whole no-border and deportation mania with the right to a home – a human right that is protected under international law and is part of the inalienable human dignity laid down in Article 1 of our Basic Law. With the millions of foreigners invading Europe, we are taking it away from both migrants and Europeans. So, roughly speaking, would this result in two groups of victims?

Yes, both sides are losers in this grotesque game: one can lose one's homeland not only through expulsion or flight, but also in one's own country through mass immigration and foreign infiltration. The United Nations therefore decided decades ago that, in order to protect one's homeland and identity, the right to one's homelandbeforeevery right to asylum exists. This fact and the bitter fate of the actual refugees should above all remind us to prevent the loss of home as far as possible, not to encourage it. But that is not what the globalist elites want.

Are these really the forces that you think are behind the migration agenda? Doesn't that sound a bit like a conspiracy theory? No, the many official statements and documents from relevant protagonists and institutions clearly point to a long-term strategy. There's no need to refer to old clichés like the obscure Hooton Plan, it's enough to know about the UN report "Replacement Migration" from 2001, which calls for Germany to be opened up to over eleven million foreign immigrants, allegedly to "close demographic gaps « to be filled – while expressly accepting the social tensions that this would inevitably involve! The facts are as clear as they are startling. What operates here under the trivializing term "replacement migration" is the brutal displacement of Germans from their traditional settlement areas.

But if this agenda is to be carried out using salami tactics, then the opening of the border in 2015 with the sudden increase in temperature posed a great risk that the German frogs would jump out of the cooking pot after all.

So I'm not sure if that was really planned or rather

only the favor of the hour was used. The social scientist Hans Jürgen Krysmanski, who died in 2016, provides important information. He has researched the structures of the global money power complex and was on the scientific advisory board of the anti-globalization network attac. His studies suggest recognizing our political class and its media claqueurs as service classes of those elites. That is why we cannot expect a solution to the migration problem, let alone a reversal, from the incumbents, despite promises to the contrary. On the contrary: they promote this process of denationalization by all means.

Doesn't globalization remain an inevitable development? The resistance against it a fight against windmills? No, this is by no means fateful, not historical determinism with no alternatives, as the system's ideology producers want to convince us. When I say globalization, I don't mean the banal fact of the faster exchange of information via the Internet and the ever shorter travel times to get from one place in the world to another. By this I mean the project initiated by human hands, which now logically wants to expand the free movement of goods and capital to include the “human” factor and in the course of this seeks to dissolve all national borders and barriers. In the eyes of the globalists, peoples and cultures are worthless and, as possible powerful opponents, annoying troublemakers of their bizarre agenda. The colorful pluriverse of ethnic-cultural autonomy with home rights and settlement monopolies is to be replaced by a new type of cosmopolis of multi-tribal societies with international freedom of establishment. This process has been going on for many years, driven by an anti-national network of private foundations, NGOs and supranational institutions like the EU. This amounts to a kind of global free trade zone with dislocated and fragmented groups of people who would then be all the easier to control. NGOs and supranational institutions such as the EU. This amounts to a kind of global free trade zone with dislocated and fragmented groups of people who would then be all the easier to control. NGOs and supranational institutions such as the EU. This amounts to a kind of global free trade zone with dislocated and fragmented groups of people who would then be all the easier to control.

A kind of "popular opposition" opposed this process in some European countries and also in the USA. History is full of surprises! Ironically, the USA, as the shield and sword of the globalists, has set out under President Donald Trump to initiate a change of era: Away from excessive free trade, migration extremism and global intervention policy - towards pacifying borders, domestic economic orientation and national

self-moderation. Unfortunately, Trump gave in to the hawks of the political-administrative system on the last point. The uprising of American citizens is no accident: US society suffers from the devastating consequences of globalization and the imperialistic adventures of crazy neocons, just like the countries of the rest of the world who have been “fortunately” made happy by them. The events in the USA are in line with the rise of the so-called "right-wing populists" in Europe, which is being borne in particular by the resentment of the "little people" and the middle classes.

So the "end of history" is over for its part and things are moving again? Yes, the delicate political short-pass game is about to end and we're switching to a robust kick-and-rush mode. As a result, entirely new, unusual political actors can emerge. One may regret that, but it also offers the chance for surprising twists.

But what is really real about Trump and what is staged? Couldn't he also be a kind of "Obama from the right"? This has greatly disappointed his followers and has fallen far short of the promises in political reality. Trump seems no less connected to the political establishment than Obama and exposed to its harmful influences. I agree conditionally. But even if Trump is entangled in the web of the old elites by the Republican Party and the representatives of the “deep state” and seems to be overwhelmed with the historical task that falls to him, at least he is standingsymbolicfor a break with the establishment. In the USA we are witnessing the alliance of the "king" with the people against the nobility - the money power. As a billionaire, he has outgrown this milieu, but as a real estate entrepreneur he is much more down-to-earth and conservative than the international financial sharks who have fallen victim to modern casino capitalism. His scope is certainly much more limited than the pithy sayings claim. But we should, despite the sometimes bitter disappointments - above all in foreign policy matters – continue to view developments in the USA with an open mind. We don't know how the story ends. But whether Trump is neutralized, overthrown, self-defeated or not, there will be no easy return to the status quo ante. Otherwise there is a risk of an uprising of the white working class in alliance with the frustrated

American middle class.

In any case, his electoral victory in late 2016 spurred on populists in Europe, who are waging a similar struggle against the old globalist elites. The result of a large-scale survey in 28 countries before the last World Economic Forum in Davos also shows that there is great potential: an overwhelming majority of people no longer have any trust in the establishment – managers, politicians, non-governmental organizations and the media. TheFAZspoke of a dramatic erosion. In any case, it shows that we as a people's opposition, to which I also count the AfD as a party formation, are anything but a marginal, almost exotic political minority of troublemakers, as the old party cartel always wants to make us believe, but part of a large citizens' movement that in many countries of Europe and the world against the global capitalist devastation and the neoliberal migration dogma.

Were you personally surprised when the Monday walks began in Dresden at the end of 2014? Yes and no. On the one hand, there has been rumbling among the population for a long time. Numerous citizens' initiatives on various topics such as education, family and life protection had emerged in the previous years and the AfD had already formed as a new alternative party in the wake of the euro crisis. The protest atmosphere was no longer limited to the famous regulars' tables, but had reached the living rooms of completely normal families. The citizens' healthy skepticism towards governments, parties and parliaments had turned into a clear aversion. One had the feeling that "those up there" live in a bubble and no longer have access to normal people and their problems. But instead of falling into resignation as before and fleeing into private life,

Of course, the form and size of the Pegida walks had different qualities than the previous initiatives. Yes, people took to the streets in increasing numbers and articulated their displeasure with a hitherto unknown clarity. The »refugee crisis« that escalated in autumn 2015 acted as a catalyst. Apparently, the established side had thought that those who were spoiled by wealth

Germans had become so saturated and lazy that they could no longer resist their unpopular policies. But this calculation didn't work out. It is remarkable that an essentially local phenomenon like the Pegida protests should have attracted such attention. The whole world suddenly looked at Dresden. One felt instinctively that if the Germans stood up, a turnaround of historic proportions would be in the air.

The Germans aren't exactly famous for their rebelliousness. You're probably thinking of Lenin's smug comment about the Germans' incompetence for revolution, who would draw a platform ticket before storming a train station. There is actually something to it, because we are a very "legalistic" people who prefer to protect their rebellion with paragraphs. In addition, there is a pronounced long-suffering, which has allowed us to survive longer dry spells and troughs in history, but can also be fatal in certain periods. My party colleague Marc Jongen noticed that we Germans had a pronounced "thymos weakness", i.e. a lack of courage, anger and indignation - and in fact it is sometimes difficult to bear the unreasonable demands and injustices this people put up with without getting up. But there is also the rebellious and stubborn in another corner of our folk soul. You probably can't have one without the other.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky even called the Germans "the protesting people." He was referring to Luther's protest against the ramshackle clergy of the Roman Catholic Church, which at the time spread like wildfire among the people. The example of Luther shows: revolts and uprisings never happen among us Germans for their own sake, they only flare up when there is persistent injustice, dishonesty and incompetence in leading classes. In contrast to some other peoples, we are not rebellious by nature, rather docile and loyal to the ruler, and are generally regarded as "submissive to the authorities". Luther, too, avoided a rupture to the end. He wanted the reformation of the church and not its division. He then spoke the language of the regulatory powers against the rebellious peasants. But at some point our patience will run out, too, and then the legendary "Furor teutonicus" will break out, which the ancient Romans trembled at.

The Roman historian Lucanus reports on this Germanic-German archetype in the »Pharsalia«. Indeed, this mysterious fury of our ancestors raged not only against the external enemy, but also against our own failing leadership. There is a remarkable, somewhat gloomy story about this, which the writer Ernst von Wildenbruch reported: When the Alemanni, under their king Chnodomar, went into the field against the Roman troops of the later Emperor Julian Apostasta in the 4th century AD, the Legionnaires can only withstand the incredible fighting spirit of the Germans by virtue of their enormous superiority in weapons. When it became apparent that the Alemannic warriors would not be able to defeat the Roman fighting machine, in their anger they tore their own guides from their horses and attacked them. One more reason for today's rulers to tremble before their own people! Clever statesmanship can incorporate the thrust of a rebellion as a shaping element of its politics. This is what happened with the Prussian reforms in the 19th century. The names Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and later also Bismarck stand for the fact that a revolutionary people's army was transformed into a state army as the nation's school. Another example from this period are the demands of social democracy, which resulted in legal rules for social equality.

The Germans are perhaps one of the most peaceful peoples in the civilized world. Yes, but that doesn't counteract the rebellious potential, it only makes it more effective. As abruptly as the protest flares up, its transfer into a renewed order is accepted and everyone then peacefully collaborates on its political architecture. This also became clear during the last upheaval of 1989/90. In today's political class, however, there can be no question of clever statesmanship: Even the urgent advice of political scientist Werner Patzelt to take the Pegida protests seriously and not to sulphurize them and suppress them went unheeded. The same thing happened when the AfD entered state and federal parliaments. The old party cartel relies on the exclusion of Maaz's omegas and entrenched itself in delusion, to have done everything right in the end – the only problem is conveying their politics. This complacency and intransigence only fuels the mood of protest in the country.

But weren't revolts rather the exception in German history? Think of Arminius' fight for freedom against the Roman Empire or the struggle of the Staufer emperors against the worldly arrogance of the popes, the peasant revolt in the 16th century, the wars of liberation against Napoleon, the patriotic resistance against Hitler, the national uprising on June 17 against the Soviet occupying power, the German autumn of 1989 just mentioned and today the civil protests against the immigration policy - all this speaks for a basic trait in our national character. Overall, that's impressive. The popular view that we Germans are eternally naïve idiots who would dullly accept all the demands of the ruling classes certainly does not correspond to historical reality. Even if we patriots sometimes doubt the resilience of our people,

Ludwig Börne spoke of the elephant skin of the Germans, which does not let them feel tender tickles. So you have to "stick a stick in the ribs". And it is precisely this pole that more and more citizens are now feeling as a result of the disastrous policy. I therefore do not share the defeatist complaints of some depressed conservatives, which in a bizarre way combine with the euphoric jubilation of our enemies to create a creepy swan song for our people.

But isn't there a danger that at some point it might be too late for a fundamental change of course? The existence of the Germans has always been endangered. This is due to another special characteristic of ours: the unconditional »wanting to go to the end«. In positive times this releases unimagined energies, but in negative phases it turns into disaster, as was shown by the "total war" in the final phase of the Third Reich. Unfortunately it is like this: the greatest virtues and strengths are at the same time the greatest sins and weaknesses. It always depends on the specific context in which they unfold.

And today we have arrived in a negative phase again? To the extent that the understandable efforts to clarify one's own identity after 1945 turned into a fundamental self-denial?

Not only a denial of one's own, with some compatriots a veritable national self-hatred has developed and increased into a delusion of self-extinction.

You mean the so-called anti-Germans? I mean those auto assistants in our country who grant every people except the German a right to life. This is not just limited to primitive foot soldiers like the autonomous Antifa, just read the statements by leading Green or Left politicians and some media people: they are really cheering about our imminent death as a result of the population exchange. For them, the refugees are only a means to an end so that their own hated people can finally disappear from the world stage. You could describe them as Germans with a national borderline syndrome. Ultimately, however, these plants also belong to the German garden, as Ernst von Wildenbruch discovered 150 years ago. However, with bad consequences. For him, the German inclination to self-contempt was “like a wicked weed that, in its rank growth, finally smothers and suffocates the good and noble plants.”.

One must not forget that the re-education and coming to terms with the past that began after 1945 favored this growth. The two terrible world wars of the last century, in which the Allies not only fought against the militarists and Nazis, but also, according to Roosevelt, against the Germans themselves, had a psychological dimension in addition to the material one, which continues to have an effect to this day. And on this mental level of the war there were and are numerous "wounded" among our people who we should take care of - even if their auto-aggressive behavior alienates us and sometimes threatens us. But Wildenbruch's words also show that today's elites can fall back on certain destructive characteristics of our people in order to carry out their anti-national politics.

Is that also the reason why people in Germany are so stubbornly clinging to the experiment of a multicultural society, which even the official side declared years ago to have failed? The Germans were because of their imperial history and the geopolitical

situation has always been more cosmopolitan and multinational than other, more self-contained peoples. We have a disposition to exoticism, a love of the stranger that ennobles in moderation but, in today's extreme form, works to our detriment.

Others have already noticed that this even refers to romantic roots. It is one of the punch lines of history that the hottest advocates of the Polonization of East Prussia and Czechism in Bohemia were precisely Germans who, as they say in modern German, »reinvented« themselves as Poles and Czechs: Adalbert von Winkler alias Wojciech Kętrzyński and Friedrich Tiersch alias Miroslav Tyrš. All right, but all this was limited to a minority and where the level of self-denial was exceeded and degenerated into a real cult of foreigners, even the German intellectual greats lamented it as a vice and a danger. The decisive factor was always whether the elites were able to rein in the difficult soul structure and steer it productively. Today the political class itself is caught up in the self-endangering parts, driving the people to the brink of the abyss.

Which then also includes holding out at all costs. The thoroughness and principledness with which the Germans carry out projects once they have started will be their undoing in the case of the multicultural society? Yes, waking up too late would be life-threatening. The colorful patriotic resistance that has formed in Germany in recent years gives hope that we can get out of this mess again. Of course, we must be careful that in the legitimate fight against the policy of national self-dissolution, our intrinsically valuable virtue of respect for what is foreign and different is not lost. That's why I warn again and again that dissatisfaction should never be directed against the foreigners living here in general - which does not rule out disapproving of certain unacceptable behavior in very specific cases - but exclusively against the politicians responsible for the misery. They like to divert the protest that was actually addressed to them into the foggy swamp of "xenophobia" and "racism". A clever diversionary maneuver that unfortunately all too often works for the citizens. The establishment still knows that the majority of Germans are behind them,

as the last general election showed. The election results are an important but not reliable indicator of the mood in the country. As Günter Maschke once mockingly remarked, it will one day go down in the history books as the "German miracle" that people voted for parties whose policies they did not want. That was the case a few years ago with the abolition of the DM, as it is today with the Islamization of the country. One has to state soberly: as little as our political class can or wants to solve the existential problems of our people, it is just as professional in the technique of maintaining power. After a brief moment of panic, she used an effective set of tools to curb the unexpectedly violent public protests: sharing, excluding, demonizing. Instead of taking up the rough resentment of the street and undertaking a revision of the previous policy, the political and media elite hit the protesters with unbelievable severity and aggressiveness. A West German political scientist even called for the criminalization of AfD and Pegida, which he described as an "East German pack". In principle, this is hate speech in the proper sense: inciting the supposed »bright Germany« against an alleged »dark Germany«.

One could say: This is where the real splitters of our people sit. Exactly. But this mean act of those in power also promotes resistance: the nasty insults and rigid measures of those in power against the popular opposition have an intimidating effect and have so far deterred most dissatisfied citizens from an open uprising. But, as I said before, holding them down only increases the pressure in the kettle, especially since those in government are showing no signs of changing their miserable and hopeless policies. From initially just concerned walkers, a hard core of resisters has emerged and the AfD has been flushed into parliaments everywhere - especially in the east of the republic.

The established side was outraged that a few thousand demonstrators presumed to represent the sovereign with the cry "We are the people" and also to occupy the legacy of 1989. Well, not a small part of the AfD and Pegida supporters were already in the civil opposition and on the streets at the time of reunification. In the former parts of the GDR, one has experience with a regime hostile to the people and one that ranges from skepticism to the point of resistance

Preserved potential vis-à-vis those in power. You are also more sensitive to manipulation. The far greater electoral successes of the AfD there, in contrast to the West German states, are no coincidence. The accusation of an unjustified use of the concept of the people is as crude as it is stupid: throughout history, it has always only been a part of the people that has stood up and taken to the streets on behalf of the rest - as it did in 1989. In addition, it seems completely implausible that to hear this reproach from people who are completely indifferent to, annoying or even repugnant to the category of the people themselves. The active protests of the citizens may be concentrated in Central Germany, but anger at the prevailing politics is also growing in the West.

What do you think, why you of all people seem like a red rag to many? Apart from a few questions of style and tone, the political statements hardly differ from those of other protagonists in your party. That surprised me too at first. But enemy images probably have to be personalized somehow in order to be able to unfold their full effect. And I think the political-media class has realized - more unconsciously than consciously - that I am uncapturable, in the sense of "hegemony through neutralization," as described by the Marxist intellectual Antonio Gramsci. In this case, the instincts of today's rulers are even right: I cannot be corrupted by the temptations of the establishment. There will be no arrangement whatsoever with me. I stand for a fundamental change in our country and in which - if it becomes reality these worn-out elites will no longer play a role. When you realize this, it becomes clear why the bombardment of the establishment against my person is so enormous. For them I am God-be-with-us incarnate. You need Börne's elephant skin to get through this in the long run.

Is the sharpness and brutality with which you and your fellow party members are being shot at all a sign of strength or rather of weakness? It is the sheer fear of being pushed out of established positions and losing the accumulated sinecure. It reminds me of Heinrich Böll's legendary words about the "remnants of rotting power defending themselves with rat-like fury". Today's rulers know or at least suspect that their time could soon be over. The victory of the globalists is far from certain. Even such an influential migration fanatic as

William Swing already pointed out that one would lose if one did not succeed in finally reversing the polarity of the stubborn peoples towards their self-abolition. My advice to fellow campaigners: The more hysterical the ruling caste reacts, the more aggressively they lash out like a stubborn little child whose toy you want to take away, the calmer we should become and handle all the caustic smut they dump on us with confidence and drain stoically. We should suppress any hint of justification, because our political positions are completely normal and reasonable, no matter how loudly they shout “right-wing extremists” or “racist”. We don't need to justify anything - especially not to the destroyers of our country. Some of their comrades-in-arms don't seem to be able to withstand this continuous bombardment and lose their nerve.

Yes, as an emergency valve, some then start with hectic demarcations and distancing. I can only repeat: we must remain calm. The time of the old power cartel is running out, our time is coming. Everything that the old parties still manage today is tough bankruptcy delays. We should just persevere with pursuing our rational agenda and be careful not to harden inwardly. What do you mean?

We must not allow ourselves to be infected by the hate speech and defamation of the opposing side and do the same. This also applies in the event that the tide should turn politically in our country: there should be no room for any feelings of revenge. The Christian commandment of forgiveness and mercy may one day demand a lot from us. What we have to endure today as a reviled patriotic opposition should we not expect anyone after a change of power, it would permanently prevent the unity of our people. Our task is to close the gap in our society again.

If you now unshakeably let the insults and accusations bounce off, never distance yourself, does that mean you don't draw any boundaries at all? No of course not! I was just talking about the reasonableness of our political agenda. That means I am definitely in favor of demarcation - but not according to the specifications of the political opponent, who defines terms like "right" or "far right" as they see fit, but according to their own standards,

which should be of a qualitative nature: Against stupidity, meanness, madness and destructiveness. This is usually enough to separate the wheat from the chaff. I always have to smile when the political class tries to distance itself from us. Your frantic efforts are completely superfluous: we want to have as little as possible to do with the Yesterday Men of the ailing old party system!

Does that mean you rule out any cooperation with the established parties? No, that would be an apolitical attitude that fails to recognize that politics is always about the art of the possible. With the catchphrase "old party" I also mean primarily the key protagonists and their ideology producers, not every single member of the middle ranks and at the grassroots level, there are many idealistic and reasonable people here, especially at the municipal level. But they do not determine the mainstream of the mainstream parties until there is an uprising against their leaders. Cooperation is therefore only indicated when we are strong enough to decisively determine the political course or when the established parties themselves have revised their previous general line - in other words, what we are currently hoping for in Austria. In contrast to there, however, the tipping point of the change in opinion has not yet been reached, even if we are slowly moving towards it. In all considerations about cooperation, we must not lose sight of the realities: established politics has driven the German car into the dirt. She is responsible for the terrible conditions in our country. The AfD was and is elected by the citizens to put a stop to this devastating policy and reverse it wherever possible. That means: it is our mission The established policy has driven the German car in the dirt. She is responsible for the terrible conditions in our country. The AfD was and is elected by the citizens to put a stop to this devastating policy and reverse it wherever possible. That means: it is our mission The established policy has driven the German car in the dirt. She is responsible for the terrible conditions in our country. The AfD was and is elected by the citizens to put a stop to this devastating policy and reverse it wherever possible. That means: it is our missionnot, to stabilize the cart in the dirt so that it can continue to modernize there, but: to pull it out again! The established policy has driven the German cart into the dirt in all future-determining policy areas, such as currency, energy, family and immigration policy. It is questionable whether the old elites want to or can lend a hand – if so, then only their unused and uncorrupted parts. Of course there are. We will work with them. What is decisive is not just any participation in government, but whether politics is finally going in the right direction again. We need more strategy and less tactics.

You talk so naturally about the obsolescence of today's elites. Does that come from your tendency to think in longer cycles as a history student? Yes, that certainly plays into this. The ancient philosophers Plato and Aristotle already recognized that there is an incessant rise and fall of communities. The Greek historian Polybius wrote in his famous politeíon anakýklosisdeveloped these ideas further by describing the constant alternation between the three good types of constitution, monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, and their three bad counterparts, tyranny, oligarchy and ochlocracy, whereby he understood "good" to mean the orientation towards the common good and "bad" to mean a fixation on self-interest . I don't want to go into the details and problems of this anacyclosis now, because a few hundred years later Machiavelli gave us a drastically simplified model with which we can describe the current situation perfectly: He only distinguishes between the two phases of a good order and the phases of political decline, which inevitably alternate due to the particular nature of man. Machiavelli calls for »virtú« – political order and creative power – in order to protect a community à la longue from decline. And order is always an effort, chaos comes all by itself. The same applies to political culture.

It's like on your own desk at home or at work in the garden. Exactly, every garden lover knows that culture wants to be wrested from nature every day. And that also applies to culture and politics. Order takes a lot of energy. And decadence is nothing but a consequence of weakness or an unwillingness of people to make this effort. Important for the analysis of today's crisis is Machiavelli's point that decay always proceeds from the top down: it begins with the decadence of the political elite and gradually spreads to the entire social fabric. The fish starts to stink from the head. And in your opinion, it stinks tremendously today.

Yes, we only need to look at the symptoms of decline mentioned by Machiavelli in his writings in order for the negative finding to become clear: The fractionation of society into small groups, the

resulting loss of community spirit and growing group egoism, private greed for power and enrichment, loss of political ethos and love of country, erosion of moral and religious awareness, revaluation of traditional values: high and good are seen as ridiculous, low and Evil, on the other hand, is admired. I think there is hardly a better way to describe the current state of our society, including its political class. Our party democracy has degenerated into an ochlocracy, a rule of the bad, via the path of an oligarchy. But would this descent process then be something natural, based on no malicious intent on the part of those involved?

As for the decline of elites: yes. The ruling class is not willingly pursuing its downfall. Every pleasure and every power wants eternity. But that is an illusion: Vilfredo Pareto spoke of history as a »cemetery of the elites«.

Then your party is not exempt from this fate of degeneration either? Of course not. But don't paint the devil on the wall right away! The AfD has just left its childhood days and is now developing a youthful, fresh dynamic to stir up the saturated, boring political scene in our country and to disrupt the established consensus. But the fate of ossification and oligarchization, as described by the sociologist Robert Michels, also threatens the AfD in the long term. Incidentally, that was the core thesis of my "Dresden Speech," in which I warned my fellow party members not to allow themselves to be corrupted by the tempting feeding troughs of parliamentary mandates. But that was completely lost in the media “shitstorm” that followed. My realistic goal is to hold off these degeneration effects for as long as possible. As I said, it will probably never be prevented. That's why I wouldn't push myself so doggedly against an unused political force in due course, as the political rulers are doing today. The cyclic image of eternal growth and decay, of rise and fall, is part of my basic ontological understanding.

What exactly do you want to do to at least slow down the wear and tear? Above all, we have to be careful that careerists and job seekers don't

Getting the upper hand in the party and not watering down the political content. That was also the reason why we founded the »Flugel« in 2015.

Isn't the "wing" a party within the party? Doesn't it rather prevent inner unity? On the contrary, we see ourselves as an integrative force at the center of the party and have never questioned the justification of other currents and opinions. The events are also open to all party members, there is no exclusivity or club cheating. We understand the "wing" quite simply as a good spirit that makes sure that we remain a real alternative to the established parties. Whether the AfD project will be successful in the long term depends less on the objective political situation - which clearly plays for us - and more on the ability of its top officials to prevent the party from adapting to the establishment and to establish it as a real force of renewal.

Do you think that internal party conflicts can be resolved at all? Aren't they part of how parties function? Don't even parties devalue themselves by narrowing the spectrum? Yes, the friction can definitely have an invigorating effect and such things can never be completely resolved in human organizations anyway. In a relatively young party, fierce squabbles are quite normal, just think of the chaotic beginnings of the Greens. Unfortunately, here too, the disputes have sometimes taken on a destructive twist. In the past, for example, there was no real cohesion in a staged media campaign against individual party representatives, on the contrary: this attack from outside was often used as an instrument for internal party power struggles. I was able to experience this myself several times when the mainstream media attacked me. This had a negative impact on internal morale and the external image of the party. Recently, a stronger cohesion seems to be slowly proving itself, who lets the whole pseudo-excited screaming of the political-media caste run into nothing. I would very much welcome it if this constructive cooperation between the various currents within the party, as we are also experiencing in the Bundestag, remains stable. That doesn't mean that you should be uncritical about verbal missteps and oblique content, but you should always beinternalremain matter. We can learn a lot from the well-known solidarity of the left against attacks from outside.

The poet Peter Rosegger once remarked that actually sensible people as soon as they enter the arena of political parties - become "blind brawlers, rogues and fools".. Unfortunately, this basic evil of parties can also be found here in the AfD. The responsibility lies primarily with the leaders, because the vast majority of the membership base has no understanding of intra-party power struggles because they only damage the public image and waste valuable energies that we need more urgently elsewhere. But as I said: the party has different political currents and some very ambitious protagonists. On the one hand, this is a strength, because the larger the political spectrum, the greater the projection surface for frustrated citizens. On the other hand, the polyphony of the top players makes consistent leadership difficult. In the current opposition phase, this is not so bad and can be regulated with a dual tip, for example, as we have also solved in the federal party and in the parliamentary group. So far we have shown a pleasing unity across the various countries and intra-Patient groups, and it is to be hoped that this will remain the case in the future. However, if you want to take on government responsibility in the foreseeable future, the form of dual leadership is rather a hindrance. A central leader is then required who, even as an individual, is able to create the internal unity of the party. It must be reasonably free from fear of competition, be able to mediate, have an integrative effect and represent all currents that are overarched by a purified patriotism. In short: it takes a strong personality and a firm hand on a long leash, to tame the centrifugal forces and combine them into a political force. But this internal balance must never lead to the AfD losing its patriotic profile and being unfaithful to its mission of renewal. I will fight for this as long as I can work in this party.

Now, even after Frauke Petry's departure, there is still talk of a conflict between "Realos" and Fundis" in the AfD, in analogy to the Greens. I think the whole thing is a sham conflict. In view of the intolerable conditions in our country and the total failure of the political class, realpolitik can only be based on a fundamental critique of the status quo. Anyone who expects the salvation of the people from those who despise the people is hopelessly naïve. We may on the question of future cooperation

never forget with other parties: A collaboration with those forces that are tearing our country into the abyss is absurd. Any consideration of joining forces or forming a coalition with parts of the political establishment presupposes their purification and fundamental readjustment. That can only be expected when the old party cartel has collapsed under the increasing burden of the crisis.

You don't believe in their ability to regenerate? I'm skeptical here. Of course, the established parties will try to suggest a renewal with younger personnel, but the new generation within the party that comes into question here is the flesh of their own flesh and has so far not exactly distinguished itself through particular political creativity and independence. Of course you can't predict the future exactly, but I rather suspect that there will be drastic changes in the party system in the next few years, with dissolutions, splits and the founding of new political formations. This will lead to further confusion, but also to unforeseen opportunities: then the power cards will be reshuffled and options for cooperation that are not yet known will arise, From which a new political-administrative leadership could then develop with the healthy parts of the state administration. I consider the overcoming of party spirit and the close connection with the neutral, competent state institutions to be decisive in solving the pending problems. Until then, it is the task of the AfD to be an unmistakable parliamentary voice and representative of the popular opposition in the country. However, they will not bring about any political change in the permanent opposition.

The opposition is only the first step towards a political turnaround: as citizens and patriots, we must of course defend ourselves against the unreasonable demands of today's politics with all legal means. This resistance has different levels, it can take place on the level of street protests, as with Pegida, or also within party political frameworks. The 'fortress of the established' must be clamped down on at least two sides: by the protesting rank and file and by us as the parliamentary spearhead of the bourgeois opposition. A further front from the frustrated parts of the state and security apparatus would be important, which would have to pay for the insane politics of the government and could fall back on the right of remonstration.

How closely should this mosaic resistance milieu work together? I don't think it makes sense to mix up the different levels too much, but good contact and exchange among them is all the more important. It must be clear: Everyone has their task and their field of activity. This does not rule out joint actions on a case-by-case basis: Why shouldn't an AfD speaker also give a speech at a serious, solid citizens' demonstration? After all, the participants are also potential or actual voters for our party. In any case, it's useless to try to make an embarrassing demarcation just because you're afraid of getting "dirty" by the sometimes rustic demeanor of the protagonists and demonstrators. Street protests are inherently rougher and more acclamatory than parliamentary speeches or subtle disputations. In addition, as a party political force, we also have an important task namely to mentally refine the »raw forms« of the citizens' protests and to integrate them into a sensible partisan program and strategy. There is always some truth in the »Vox populi«, even if it is not articulated so finely.

Again, protest, whether on the streets or in parliament, is not enough to bring about a change in policy. Yes, even if I have great respect and admiration for the courage, vigor and perseverance of Pegida, One Percent and other citizen protest groups: A resistant potential must at some point become capable of becoming a state and governor. In other words, for the future we need an effective political team that is capable of assuming responsibility. As Alexander Gauland rightly remarked, we still have a lot to learn here. And we should use our time in the party political opposition to develop these competencies. But here, too, we have to remain realistic: despite all the euphoria and hope in view of the parliamentary successes, it would only be possible to bring about a fundamental change to a limited extent, even as the future governing party. On the one hand, this requires a changed socio-cultural substructure, which is still predominantly anti-national today, and on the other hand, the prerequisites for consistent »government« must be in place - we must not underestimate the likely concessions to any coalition partners and the systemic blockages. The governing coalition of so-called right-wing populists and established politicians in Austria

show whether a blueprint for Germany is being created here or not. Would you describe yourself as a populist?

If you use this term to ascribe a special closeness to the people, then yes. But we also have to recognize the limits and dangers of populism, it has its strengths and weaknesses. He is correct in his diagnosis that in the course of the oligarchization and ochlocratization tendencies, a detached political-media caste has formed and alienated from the people. Their staff fails to deal with the problems at hand and increasingly acts against the interests of the citizens. If the populists now speak on behalf of the people and position themselves against the establishment, the following problems arise: We as a people are already highly fragmented and basically no longer produce a unified popular will, but rather a dissonant cacophony.

What do you conclude from this?

Despite being close to the citizen, a responsible politician must not make himself dependent on the fluctuating mood of the people, especially since these can be manipulated. Even with a restored inner unity, he must have a sensorium for the "volonté generale" and, if necessary, also againstthe current public sensitivities andforthe people make the right decisions - not in an autocratic and autocratic way, but in a serving sense. This distinguishes a statesman from a pure populist who always threatens to collapse ochlocratically.

The patriotic resistance and also the AfD is often referred to as a reservoir for globalization losers and those left behind. Can serious government work be expected from such people? No one expects demonstrators to have ministerial skills! That's why we have a party formation with the appropriate management personnel, although one should always look beyond the party's nose when it comes to specialist skills. In addition, Alexander Gauland, Jörg Meuthen or Alice Weidel are certainly not “losers from globalization”, but represent part of the educated, managerial middle class in our country. And according to serious sociological studies, the Pegida demonstrators are by no means »underdogs«, but a

Cross-section of society and should even have an above-average income. However, according to the sociologists, this middle class is crumbling and is at risk of social decline.

That certainly affects a growing group in our country, but not the protagonists of the party mentioned, to whom I would also count myself as a civil servant. However, we do not cultivate any arrogant class arrogance that, with anti-social flippantness, pulls off the "corner resentment of those who have been left behind and modernization losers", as one could hear from some quality journalists and even from representatives of the left. People like Gauland, Meuthen and Weidel although not yet directly affected by the negative effects of neoliberalism - have a sense of responsibility that transcends class boundaries, including towards the socially weaker classes, who undoubtedly initially suffer the most from the effects of globalization and mass migration have. This sets them apart from the class arrogance of established bourgeois circles. It is obvious that the multicultural society is a project of the rich, because only they can enjoy the advantages of unlimited diversity with their financial strength and avoid the ugly side effects - in contrast to the middle and lower classes. These victims of globalization, who also make up a significant number of Trump supporters, are collectively denigrated there by the representatives of the political-media establishment as racist, dull »white trash«. It reminds me of a scathing bumper sticker that circulated in the West in the 1990s: "Your poverty pisses me off." No wonder that the AfD is primarily elected by the “little man”; in the last state election in Baden-Württemberg, it was 30% of the workers!

Not only the allocation of the electorate, the political fronts in general run today through all strata and milieus. Yes, but that is only superficially due to the positioning for or against mass immigration. If you take a closer look, it's more fundamental: on the one hand there are the supporters of the "Ancien Régime" and on the other hand the forces that advocate a complete change of policy. And today these fault lines actually cut across all political "camps" and parties. One can speak of a political paradigm shift that we are currently experiencing. Within the traditional liberal, conservative and left-wing milieus are dividing

»system-compliant« and »system-critical« parts and form completely new connections and alliances. I don't think this is a fleeting, temporary phenomenon that will subside when the crisis abates. I am convinced that we are at the beginning of a long-term and sustainable change. You could already see that in the early Pegida demonstrations: people with very different political socializations and views met there. The unifying bond was the anger at the bad politics of "those up there". Of course, the ruling party cartel wants to prevent such new "cross fronts" as described by the young publicist Benedikt Kaiser.

In history, however, this term is more associated with a political evil. With reference to the Weimar Republic, where there were isolated rapprochements between communists, conservative revolutionaries and also National Socialists under the slogan »Querfront«, the establishment wants to discredit the popular opposition by suggesting that this is an alliance of »extremists « and exponents of the »lunatic fringe«. This is nonsense, of course: the resistance coalition that is emerging today is not developing from the political fringes, but has its main base in the middle classes of the bourgeoisie. It's not for nothing that the "bad racism" that has "meanwhile reached mainstream society" is castigated.

But your party also warns against slipping into “extremist positions”.. I still understand that the establishment resorts to such deadly slogans for purely tactical reasons, but not if a fundamental desire for reform in its own ranks is classified as dangerous and suspected of being extremist. In the existential crisis we do not need false conservative loyalty to institutions that endanger the future of our people, but selfconfident, recalcitrant civic courage and a militant non-conformism, which today, as I said, can be found in all political camps. How exactly does the paradigm shift mentioned take place?

There is a lot going on at the moment: Suddenly you no longer agree with some people from “your own camp”, but you find it surprising

Agreement with so many positions of the originally opposing side. Of course, that creates confusion and forces you to readjust your political self-image. This goes hand in hand with de-solidarising and solidarity-enhancing effects. Conservatives in particular, who are traditionally loyal to the state and elite, have a hard time with this: if yesterday they still believed in the need for civic discipline and "loyalty to the system" in order to keep the community in order, today more and more angry and courageous citizens are taking to the streets, vote for AfD and turn away from the old elites, as these very forces are undermining the cherished order and stability.

Measured against the chaotic conditions brought about by globalization and the dissolution of the linearity of the political fronts, it would perhaps even be more appropriate to speak of a "whirlwind".. That probably describes it better than the historically used term »Querfront«. But whatever one may call these processes, they lead to internal tensions and external conflicts: the "systematic conservative" wrestles with the "conservative rebel," so to speak.

This can be observed very well not only in the AfD, but also in some conservative publications. Behind this is probably the concern that such a fundamentally oppositional attitude would scare off middle-class voters. The question is what is meant by the ominous "bourgeois corridor" that was once mentioned in an internal party strategy paper. The left-green dogooders come almost exclusively from the bourgeoisie and the most devastating politics today is pursued by the left-liberal middle class. Or do you mean the old German bourgeoisie with its claim to education and cultivated secondary virtues? I myself come from a deeply middleclass milieu, I studied, worked as a high school teacher and have a family with four children. According to this understanding, the accusation of being unbourgeois is completely wrong. Civil is actually not a political one either, but a social category, as Manfred KleineHartlage pointed out. A limitation to the bourgeoisie does not fit with the self-image as a people's party, because a significant part of the people would be ignored. The so-called "little man", the socially disadvantaged, are, as Alexander Gauland has established and election analyzes regularly confirm, the most important group of voters in the AfD. How to take care of this clientele,

we can partly learn from the traditional left, just as some system-loyal conservatives can learn a little from their criticism of power.

How does the left fare in the shift in political paradigms? It is not to be envied at all at the moment, because it is in an even bigger bind than the conservatives: its previous positions against US imperialism, against a confrontation with Russia, against globalization, predatory capitalism and social cuts are being fought by the established parties, to which she now also belongs or wants to belong. With this pandering to the prevailing globalist politics, the left is threatened with a third historical disaster. The first defeat was the mass defection of the workers to the National Socialists during the Third Reich, which had already started at the end of the Weimar Republic. The second defeat was the collapse of real socialism in the late 1980s. This led to a great disorientation, until a cheap substitute for the lost "socialist promise" was found in the state-imposed anti-fascism of the Federal Republic with its anti-national sentiments. Due to the Stasi's lack of culture in the GDR, people were well prepared for the "fight against the right" with its extensive denunciation and snooping work and could also maintain a good conscience with this actually morally poor activity.

Since all the old parties have now internalized an unrelated Antifa ideology, the successor party to the SED quickly emerged from the post-communist sleazy corner and was able to come to terms with the former class enemies and even form governments. In doing so, she may have shed some principles. Since the hegemony of the Soviet party has given way, it has not continued the honorable tradition of German socialism, but placed itself at the new master's disposal. Yes. The fact that one had to submit to the requirements of the Americans, as had previously been the case with the Russians, was not as grotesque as it might appear at first glance: once a foreign gentleman's servant - always a foreign gentleman's servant! But the tragedy is not over yet. Not only that the left has completely discredited itself in terms of political ideas by currying favor with the neoliberal establishment, by adopting the

libertarian no-border-no-nation ideology is now attached to another absurd project that will fail. It is an absolute spiritual and moral low point for the left to serve as the auxiliary power of global capital and in doing so to shamefully abandon the actual clientele – the German workers and the socially disadvantaged.

At a Pegida demonstration on Dresden's Neumarkt in July 2017, I heard one of the passers-by vilify the counter-demonstrators as "worker traitors!" Nevertheless, left-wingers always castigate the consequences of globalization and turbo-capitalism. Sure, but without clearly naming the causes of the social upheavals. The left definitely wants globalization, only the ugly social consequences should be cushioned or painted over. I must reiterate: the globalist left's almost fanatical advocacy of open borders and rampant multiculturalism is a blatant betrayal of the native working class. No amount of social rhetoric can obscure the fact that the migration ideology and mass immigration are a logical consequence of global capitalism with its demand for the free movement of goods, capital and people worldwide. A prominent proponent of illegal immigration, Milton Friedman, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, argued that open borders or a welfare state, but cannot have both. Today, with a few exceptions, the left have forgotten this simple insight. The multicultural society she prefers is a non-solidarity, antisocial and unsettling society! Can that be your goal?

Oskar Lafontaine has repeatedly pointed out that local workers are the hardest hit by lower-class immigration. And to the dismay of those who share his views, he has called for illegal refugees to be consistently deported. He was sharply attacked in his own ranks for these statements and demonized as a "racist". It's the same for Sahra Wagenknecht: every time she speaks a simple truth or takes a sensible position, her "party friends" attack her. Her sentence, "If the AfD says the sun rises in the East, then I won't say the opposite," puts her far above the intellectual rabble of the establishment. Wagenknecht is isolated on the left and was only tolerated at the top of the party for reasons of electoral tactics because it brings votes. Unfortunately, she's still from the

blocked by the usual anti-right-wing sentiments and ultimately swims with the political mainstream. But since she has kept a clear, unobstructed view of the situation, she rightly fears for left-wing votes that could end up with the AfD. Due to the massive alienation of the left from the "ordinary people", it is no wonder that the FPÖ, the Front National and Donald Trump have received support from the working class in particular. Trump has succeeded in doing this with a decidedly “left” economic program.

Which even impressed the left wing of the US Democrats, Bernie Sanders. We can get some suggestions here to strengthen our social profile in the AfD, like Sahra Wagenknecht's thoughts in her last books wealth without greedandCourageously against the tide can inspire in the development of an alternative economic order.

You were amused earlier that the opposing side derived an extreme right-wing position from a left-wing economic concept of all things. No matter what you call it, I see no contradiction between a patriotic and a decidedly social position, on the contrary: it is the responsibility that you as a patriot have for thewholepeople and not just for a certain upper class. As the AfD in Thuringia, we have coined the term solidary patriotism for this. And we want to live it! That is why I took part in a protest march in Erfurt against the job cuts at Siemens with some party and parliamentary group colleagues at the end of 2017 - side by side with trade unionists - and I also welcome the various trade union initiatives of the popular opposition that have emerged recently. Of course, many on the left are outraged when we appear on terrain over which they believe they have customary jurisdiction. But if they feel more committed to global capitalism than to the local worker, we will turn to them more intensively and thereby defend the abandoned achievements of a 150-year labor movement, which are a specific part of our national heritage. Of course, the still thinking part of the left is also aware that only a nation state with a defined community of solidarity can also be social. That is why it has also been shown that this attention is mutual, at least at the base.

It is different with the superstructure. Today's party-intellectual left cannot do anything with national positions, they even fight them! To their own detriment. As long as their representatives demonstrate with obscene posters such as "I Love Volkstod" or "Germany, you lousy piece of shit", the voter migration of the "small citizens" to the AfD will continue. The anti-national twist of the German left is indeed a historic burden with dire consequences. This is all the sadder because there have always been patriotic currents there, both in the social democrats and among the communists. National commitments such as those made by the KPD leader Ernst Thälmann should certainly be extremely embarrassing for today's multicultural left. Remarkable national tones were also repeatedly heard from the PDS, such as from the Mecklenburg regional leader Johann Scheringer, who always saw himself as a »socialist patriot«, or the PDS Bundestag candidate from Schwerin, Angelika Gramkow,New Germany complained that "national identity had been left to the right-wingers," after all it was about "the homeland" and a "better Germany."

The late Walter Ulbricht was already striving to lead his GDR from the prison of the Eastern Bloc to German sovereignty according to the circumstances. He was overthrown by the Soviets through Honecker when he began to impose his own economic and German policies against them. But weren't those on the left always exceptions? The more recent impulses came not only from the bottom, but from the very top. Around the turn of the millennium, a veritable national turnaround was announced in the successor party to the SED. The editor ofNew Germany, Holger Becker, pointed in this direction with the remark that the name of the newspaper could take on a completely new meaning after the fall of the GDR. A basic patriotic mood in the sense of Brecht's children's anthem was in the air.

'Charm saves neither trouble. May a good Germany flourish..." Yes, a declaration of love without transfiguration: "And we don't want to be above or below other peoples..."

The then, from a overwhelming majority elected Party leader Gabriele Zimmer confessed her deep ties to Germany at the Cottbus party conference in 2000, before later

meekly buckled and was dismantled. The anti-German course of Lothar Bisky and Gregor Gysi, who had declared at the time of reunification that he was particularly bothered by the words "unity" and "Germany" in the name SED, finally prevailed. In any case, the first examples are already several years old.

Yes, unfortunately. Today, the majority of the party is strictly anti-national and takes part in everything that is directed against our country and people, from the »fight against the right« to the »no-border-no-nation« madness. But in addition to chairwoman Sahra Wagenknecht, there are other reasonable forces around the party who have become increasingly skeptical of the party's pro-globalization and pro-migration course as the crisis progresses. Even in theyoung worldone could read an interesting contribution by Klaus Fischer about the "instrumentalization of the refugees", of which I can subscribe to every word.

Aren't you too optimistic about a patriotic purification of the left? Of course, we will hardly be able to dissuade the left as a whole from their anti-national convictions, but we should help those who can still be saved to bridge their artificial and pointless gap with the people.

However, this will meet with rejection and resistance in large areas of the left. Time will tell. If we seriously want to restore inner unity among our people, we cannot avoid the task of national understanding. It certainly won't be easy. But we can at least take the initiative in two ways: On the one hand, we shouldn't equate left per se with anti-people – even if it's difficult given the behavior of today's left. On the other hand, we should be open to talks. There is a whole series of overlaps in content: our political demand against wage dumping, the dismantling of social standards and the discrimination of Germans in need of help and social welfare compared to migrants, as well as our fundamental criticism of predatory capitalism and globalization, the understanding with Russia, etc. I feel fine not even about to convert today's left to ardent patriotism, a simple reconciliation with one's own people and country the Wilhelm Schmidsche self-friendship - would be a great step forward. Positive approaches can

been observed in parts of the left for some time: At the beginning of 2018 Oskar Lafontaine called for the formation of a left-wing people's party. With a Sarah Wagenknecht at the helm, this could turn into something interesting.

Wouldn't that be fatal for the AfD? It would then have to fear losing some of its voters. It would initially be a normalization of the political scene, because in France, Spain and Italy there have long been »left-wing populist« parties that, like us, are opposed to the prevailing politics. It is well known that competition stimulates business. The AfD must then slowly decide whether it wants to act as a critical part of the establishment, as the so-called »Realpolitikers« in the party are demanding, or whether it wants to be a real alternative to the existing situation – which includes a position that overcomes globalization and capitalism.

Are you a strict anti-capitalist? If you take today's prevailing economy as a basis, then yes. Because untamed capitalism not only promotes greed, but also destroys peoples and nations in the long term in addition to social cohesion. So by capitalism I don't mean a meaningful market economy, which will have its important place in a renewed national economy, but the onesided dominance and extremization of one production factor - capital while appropriating the other two: labor and land. One can sum up this system with the formula: Money rules the world! Left and right critics of globalization and capitalism are quite right to oppose this.

The emergence of such a "whirlwind" would put today's neoliberal power cartel under severe pressure. But we are still a long way from that. When do you think the critical point will be reached at which a turn for the better begins to appear? Most people in our country still feel reasonably safe and cared for, so it may take a while. Above all in western Germany there is still a crippling inertia in terms of prosperity and naive trust in the ruling classes. When it comes to its agenda, the political class relies above all on the strategy of lulling people in by means of appeasement and downplaying the dramatic consequences of unchecked immigration. This layer is concerned with gaining time until the situation is not - or only with difficulty - reversible. So we can too

not turn a blind eye to the possibility that the country – unlike in Austria – will get bogged down in its unfortunate division. It always makes you sad that the willingness of the people here to make a fundamental change does not seem to arise from reasonable considerations, but rather only from dramatic, personally noticeable need. The phenomenon is well known from psychology, it applies to such banal problems as quitting smoking.

So will the Germans go to the limits of what is tolerable in this largescale multicultural project before there is a widespread rethink? I hope not. However, if you see the doggedness of the political class, with which they are doing this against all reason and building on the inertia of the masses, it may well be that we are bottoming out to the very bottom. Those in power will try to hold together the strong centrifugal forces of a multicultural mistrust and conflict society with a repressive regime, but that will not work in the long run - apart from the fact that such a freedom-hostile power structure cannot be a desirable future for us. At the latest when the ethno-social upheavals due to empty coffers and the state being overwhelmed can no longer be repaired, David Engel's terrible prophecies mentioned above will become reality. As a father of four children, I naturally wish for a peaceful turnaround in our country. My entire political commitment is aimed at ensuring that prudent forces stop this fate in good time. Otherwise, a new Karl Martell will be needed to save Europe.

Such a catastrophe could coincide with the end of Germany as a nation state. Then liberalism would have proved to be a fatal disease. If by “liberalism” one means an exclusive structure and bond-dissolving energy: yes. But history is not a one-way street and as the danger increases, so does the saving. You just have to recognize it and grab it by the forelock. Despite all the prophecies of doom: Even if the nation states collapse and the chaos then spreads, all is far from lost. Earlier I mentioned the possible withdrawal at country level, where there is still great potential, especially in the East, that inhumane project one

to stop the migration society.

What if that doesn't work? Then we still have the strategic option of "Gallic villages". If all else fails, we will retreat to our rural retreats like the brave and cheerful Gauls of old, and the new Romans, who reside in the neglected cities, can bite their teeth at the Teutonic asterixes and obelixes! We Germans - at least those who still want to be - will then be just one tribe among others. However, the re-tribalization in the course of the multicultural restructuring will become a catch-all position and a new nucleus of the people. And one day this reserve position can become a fallback position from which a recapture can start.

Earlier you complained about the infantilization of politics, only to now cite comic strips for political-strategic considerations! Why not? The political dimension of comics doesn't have to be limited to the legendary »Donaldism«. And bad news for our future "Romans" who really don't deserve this noble title: Like Asterix, we too have a magic potion. As with Miraculix, the recipe is of course top secret. But if you think a little more carefully, you might come up with the ingredients... To get back to the serious side of things: Our primary political goal is, of course, to prevent all of these scenarios and to stop the moving train before it impacts. That'll be hard enough. But even in the hoped-for turning point, hard times are ahead of us, because the longer a patient refuses the urgent operation, the harder the necessary cuts will inevitably be,

"Burned limbs cannot be cured with lavender water," Hegel already knew. Above all, a new political leadership will then have to endure serious moral tensions: it is committed to the interests of the autochthonous population and in all likelihood will have to take measures that run counter to its actual moral feelings. You mean measures in the context of a repatriation of migrants who cannot be integrated?

Yes, in addition to protecting our national and European external borders, a large-scale remigration project will be necessary. And I'm afraid there will be no getting around a policy of "well-tempered cruelty," as Peter Sloterdijk called it. This means that human hardship and ugly scenes cannot always be avoided. The state executive bodies should therefore proceed as humanely as possible, but also as consistently as necessary.

So it will not only be a logistical but also a moral challenge for those responsible. Yes, but existential crises require extraordinary action. Those who brought about the necessity of these measures with their unspeakable policies then bear the responsibility for this.

CRISIS AND RENOVATION

It is a well-known fact that in every existential crisis, no matter how severe, there is also an opportunity for further development. At the beginning of our conversation you spoke of the productive "Night Sea Voyage".

Herein also lies my basic confidence and composure, which goes beyond all horror scenarios. I'm sure that no matter how dire things get, there will eventually be enough of our people to start a new chapter in our history. Even if we will unfortunately lose a few parts of the people who are too weak or unwilling to resist the ongoing Africanization, Orientalization and Islamization. But apart from this possible bloodletting, we Germans have historically shown an extraordinary ability to renovate after dramatic declines. Think of the Thirty Years' War or the collapse of 1945. Whether we'll make it again is not certain,

Do you think we can't go on without one? Yes, the run-down German house needs extensive renovations. A few corrections and reforms will not suffice. But German absoluteness will be the guarantee that we will tackle the matter thoroughly and fundamentally. Once the turning point has come, we Germans won't do things by halves. Then the rubble heaps of modernity will be cleared away, because today's biggest problems are to be blamed on it.

We already live in the postmodern age! I think that's a misjudgment. The often-cited postmodernism has not yet materialized. What operates under this name today is only a certain level of degeneration of modernity and not its aftertaste. Rather, the crises of modernity are escalating today instead of being dampened or even overcome. It will be our historic task, after

to prepare and herald a real new era for the final rampage of modernity: the post-modern.

So it's not enough for you that in architecture, for example, a few ornaments were glued to the stupid boxes? No, the whole thing has to be laid out much deeper and broader. The required renovation stands in the context of an entire historical epoch. It makes sense, even for a politician who is deep in the business of the day and more focused on short-term horizons, to take a grand view from time to time and see politics in a larger historical context.

Can you outline that in broad strokes? I want to try it: I consider modernity itself to be a form of decay of a significant epoch, namely modern times, which began in Europe around five hundred years ago. With the detachment of the individual from the medieval collective, unbelievable forces were unleashed: in the sciences, technology, the economy and culture. The old structure of the civitas and imperial universalism disintegrated, so that a new political institution was needed to create order and direct the powerful but also destructive forces of emancipation into productive channels. At the same time, the people emerged as a new political subject from the ethnoplural communities of the empire. This was the birth of the modern nation-state. This state had enormous tasks to cope with: the pacification of the country, the development of the infrastructure, the administration, the judiciary and education, the shaping of economic and social policy and much more. On the whole, this also worked in the European countries - exemplary in Prussia and Austria, the two main German powers - and favored the development of Europe into the leading world power. The basic condition for this process was the taming, ordering and shaping state.

Now, since the days of privatization and deregulation, the state has tended to retreat. In doing so, you are referring precisely to the crucial point that caused a dramatic kink in the dynamic and constructive course of modern times. With the dismantling of classic statehood, which incidentally began long before the aforementioned neoliberalization, the freedom and

emancipation forces are having an increasingly destructive effect. This development was fueled again with the advent of capitalism in the 18th century, since the self-confident entrepreneurs vehemently rejected state interference in their business out of self-interest, especially in Anglo-Saxon countries. This is where the notorious Manchester capitalism raged unrestrained, with all the well-known negative social consequences. As accompanying music, the creative individual, who had flourished since the Renaissance, mutated over time into a flat mass person. Just as large construction sites were served with horsepower in the first phase of industrialization, the strict conditioning of pre-modern people contributed to the effective implementation of modernity. Soon thereafter there was a transition from a historical development phase, which was probably unique in this intensity, to a decomposition. Yes, this process continues to this day. In reality, of course, all of this happened in a much more complicated and involved way than I can present now. I'm primarily concerned with the basic idea. Does that mean that the decomposition did not proceed in a schematic-linear manner?

Right, especially in Germany there were counter-movements: the specifically German form of the Enlightenment, which, in contrast to the French edification of liberté, egalité and fraternité, took freedom seriously in its Janus-faced abyss and, for the purpose of its preservation, subjected it to a strict enclosure, the romanticism in the intellectual and cultural area, the development of a politically controlled national economy in the area of the economy, and generally the emphasis on a strong state in order to sensibly integrate the particular forces into the overall structure of the community. The currents of the so-called Conservative Revolution in the Weimar Republic had also developed various approaches to a solution, both worth considering and unsuitable. In this way, the processes of decline could be stopped and slowed down for a while. the statehood, which guaranteed the productive regulatory and organizational framework, but fell into disrepair with the increasing dominance of the parties and their occupation of public institutions. At the beginning of the 20th century, National Socialism and fascism as well as communism tried to get the crises of modernity under control with brute means and methods, but failed dramatically and left behind fields of rubble on which the decomposing materialism still lingered

could spread more unbridled.

And where do you think we are today? We are experiencing the final dissolution of all things: from gender and ethnic identities, families, religious ties to cultural traditions, the sense of form and measure – just imagine the rampant delusion of deconstruction in architecture! – to the protective and formative borders of states and cultures. Merkel's opening of the border and the »no border, no nation ideology« is just one moment in this historical process of dissolution. In the end, the human being is up for negotiation. It is no coincidence that what is known as transhumanism is being strongly promoted and promoted as a project by the global money elite. The aim is to create a new superman in the form of a human-machine hybrid - a strange, even scary idea!

Better not wish that, Reinhard Jirgl has 2012 in his disturbing novel None of us on earthimagine what happens when these colonists come back to earth! Since then, things have gone quiet in the literary world around the 2010 Büchner Prize winner, who wrote four novels for the drawer in the GDR. The fundamental criticism of modernism that the critics sensed in it made the previously celebrated writer suspect in the scene. This suspicion was confirmed, so to speak, in the notorious winter issue 2015/16 of the magazineTUMULThis short essay »The Innocents in the Home« was published. Manfred Kleine-Hartlage has described modernity as a process of destructuring and dedifferentiation. Everything that has grown historically must be deconstructed and decomposed, but – and here is the crucial point: no new forms and structures should arise at the same time. Rather, the goal is permanent liquefaction.

So no »creative destruction« à la Schumpeter, but destruction »sans phrase«. Exactly. This even has a metaphysical dimension: Because with the aim of permanent liquefaction, the forces of modernity are directed against creation itself: It is a relapse to the formless and desolate mass of preworldly chaos, as Ovid saw it in hismetamorphoseshas sung.

On the other hand, we should follow the act of creation, which consisted in giving shape and order to the amorphous structure.

The national journalist Hans-Dietrich Sander once issued the alternative imperative to the destructive »Anything goes« of modernity: »Style and Order«! The post-modern project you propagate could be reduced to this formula of the American-English poet TS Eliot. How realistic is such a historical project? We have no other choice if we don't want to degenerate into Spenglerian fellachization. We could survive like that, but on a very low cultural level. If this status occurs globally, without "fresh peoples" in sight who would tackle the reconstruction of human culture, then humanity could only restore a divine caesura.

In the Ovid poetry you just mentioned, we learn of Jupiter's decision to deluge the inept and godless human race with the promise of creating a new, better race. Before this drastic divine intervention, we humans should try to renew ourselves. The royal road goes from decomposition to recomposition. It sounds like you want to go back to the day before yesterday.

Not at all! There must not and cannot be a role backwards, but we have to put the whole thing on a new, higher level. It's not about the restoration of old structures, about a »new Middle Ages«, but about reconnecting with the creative strands of the modern age. For a people and its culture, this means that meaningful strands of tradition should not be cut and stabilizing stocks should not be cleared away, as has happened so often and rigorously in modern times, but should be subject to an “extended continuation”, as the Weimar historian Erich Marcks has called for . advanced–that is the crucial point.

So no abolition of refrigerators and cold foam mattresses. No, in a post-modern era, even diseased teeth are not extracted by barbers without anesthetic. People are most afraid of a technical step backwards when they talk about a necessary overcoming of modernity.

What could a renovation of the community look like in detail? The details of a new building should not and cannot be decreed from above, but determined in a large, joint discussion. There are many ideas and approaches to discuss, evaluate and weigh before a decision emerges. The implementation will be based on the "trial and error" principle, some things will work, some won't. But you will already have your own ideas about what needs to be done?

Of course, but these are only suggestions, not guidelines that one intends to impose on the general public. I would rather be happy about a lively, factual and open-ended discussion about how we want to live together in the future. Unfortunately, this is currently still being prevented in our country by the prevailing bans on thinking and speaking.

Can you name a few key points that are elementary for you? Yes, they result from the crisis of modernity itself: if modernity has led to people being uprooted, a new down-to-earthness should be promoted. If it has degenerated us into consumer idiots and job nomads, we must revitalize the idealistic value of meaningful work. A functioning community also requires a productive economic order that generates a balanced social fabric and does not widen the gap between rich and poor - it will be post-capitalist without falling into a crippling old-style socialism. If modernity has severed the ties to one's homeland, it is important to rediscover one's homeland as a space of security and life development. If it has damaged the identities - gender, cultural or otherwise,

The rediscovery of your own! Yes, with today's level of self-alienation, it's going to be quite an adventure. This also goes hand in hand with ensuring a people's monopoly on settlement and organization in their country. Then the foreign will regain its magic and living together with non-German populations will be perceived as an invigorating and not as a threatening moment. Identity does not simply grow out of itself, but in a dialogical relationship with the other.

Are there other items on your renewal agenda? The list is long, here are just a few more: If modernity has allowed our cities, towns and landscapes to be ugly and disfigured, then we must make beauty and a sense of form and measure the new benchmark. If it has destroyed communities and massed people, we have to restore the fruitful interplay of community and individual. If religious references have been lost in the course of modernity, we must strive for a metaphysical re-anchoring. That will be the crucial point: Alone, in order to get through the expected difficult times of crisis, we need not only a new sense of community but also inner support that is primarily fed by religious substances. Here the official churches in Germany have completely failed.

For the impending»night sea ride«do the people need spiritual guidance? Yes definitely. But in view of the bad state of our Christian churches, it will not work without another Reformation in Germany. The clergy has largely lost its religious authority and has become more and more alienated from the people. When pastors today complain that the people are turning their backs on them, that is absurd:Sheare the ones who have long since turned their backs on the people, sometimes even downright hostile to them! Of course, the rampant materialism, the naive superficial belief in science and the general secularization contribute to the replacement, but in my opinion a longing and a need for greater contexts of meaning and religious security slumbers subcutaneously in most people. Of course, this does not only happen subcutaneously: Today there are a multitude of esoteric, mystical and spiritual offers beyond the official churches.

Right, but most of it is just a surrogate. Without wanting to make an arrogant judgment about the meaning and the seriousness of these alternative offers: For a large human community form like a people, comprehensive, integrative institutions are necessary in addition to the justified individualized forms. That means: We basically need a new people's church that, like the old church in the village, stands in the middle of the community.

And how should such a people's church look like in your opinion?

I can't go into that in more detail in this context, and as a party politician I'm not really called to do this either. Surely it should be firmly anchored in the culture of the people. Their central task would be to take care of people's spiritual salvation instead of getting involved in politics, as is the case today. I agree with Augustine's and Luther's view of the two kingdoms. A new people's church would have to combine traditional popular piety, which has survived to this day in a wide variety of customs and rituals, with the idealistic-romantic idea of an animated nature and the original spiritual impulse of Christianity without at the same time contradicting the findings of the natural sciences. This integration is not easy, but not impossible either,

The»Truth disguised as lies«,as he says. Assuming that this can be suggested at all, then these are not tasks for a few electoral periods! No, with the points mentioned above, this is work for generations. But as an avant-garde, we can lay the foundations and set the course. The important thing is that so that all of our ideas for renewal are sustainable and future-proof, we must always keep an eye on the human condition, which cannot be bent endlessly without bad consequences. All ideological systems have failed because of this.

You said that the state plays a special role in the productive restraining of the forces of emancipation and freedom. After the long state downsizing processes, do you see any chance of a revival here? If we want to get a grip on modernity, which has gone completely out of control, we cannot avoid reconstitution of the state in its modernclassical form. This will be one of the crucial tasks of the future, along with the need for a religious re-establishment. All aspects of the recomposition mentioned refer to a people as a historically grown unit, but require a clearly defined order and design framework within which a people can rule and work. The state provides this framework. He is

at the same time "manager" of the historical-political subject, secures internal order and defends sovereignty to the outside world. This modern symbiosis of state and people is what we commonly call a nation. If you look at the history of Europe, it is an incredible concept for success and was only declared obsolete in the course of the globalization doctrine with its fetish of supranationalization.

History sometimes boils down to certain antagonisms. Yes, today it is the struggle between the proven nation state against limitless globalization. We believe that our preferred model of a renewed nation-state - some ballast must certainly be shed from the classic model of the 19th century - is the more sensible and also more philanthropic. Protected spaces and boundaries are essential for peaceful coexistence, both on the individual-private level, where we know the phenomenon of »social distance«, and on the community level.

»Good fences make good neighbours«, as an English proverb goes. Correct. Boundaries are part of the human condition. It is always amusing to observe the dogged demarcation against the "right" among the advocates of worldwide borderlessness. I also don't think the no-border ideologues leave their private apartments open twentyfour hours a day for anyone to walk in and out of. But they are demanding exactly this nonsense at state level and do not consider the consequences. Anyone who dissolves the borders to the outside only moves them inwards: Isolation and segregation within societies are the consequences.

That probably doesn't bother the mostly well-heeled globalist elites. Of course, unlike the average citizen, they can retreat to their »gated areas«. However, we should not only see borders as a prerequisite for all statehood, but also recognize their general creative power: The associated limitation in one dimension can lead to increased development in another dimension. For example, by meaningfully compensating the moderation in the material with the deepening of the immaterial. So instead of endlessly accumulating monetary capital, we should better establish relationships and cultivate liabilities.

Exactly. I would like to add something on the subject of »limitation«. For the English philosopher Roger Scruton, the loving connection of the individual to a limited home as a space of responsibility - the basis of any truly sustainable approach to nature conservation. No matter how useful government regulations may be in detail, they can never replace the intrinsic motivation of the individual to preserve what is on their doorstep. The exemplary Prussian reforms at the beginning of the 19th century, which among other things helped municipal self-government to achieve a breakthrough, are imbued with this spirit. Accepting the limits of the concrete space of experience as the limits of the space of responsibility means the victory of down-to-earth modesty over a hybrid delusion of feasibility.

The French philosopher Régris Debray therefore advocates a »praise of borders«.

Ultimately, the existence of borders is also the prerequisite for the extremely exciting adventure of crossing them. We shouldn't let that take us. As Faustian people, we Europeans are predisposed to this.

So, like the state, people need a limited space for action and development with an outer skin in order to be able to define and thrive. Does the reconstitution of statehood also offer an opportunity to revitalize politics? Yes, today there is hardly any idea what constitutes politics in the actual sense, namely enabling a larger human society to have a functioning way of life. Since the decay of the medieval civitas, politics has been closely linked to the modern state. A good state wisely limits itself to the basic policy lines and leaves the "fine-tuning" to the socio-political forces.

So a separation of state and society? Yes, although, according to Hegel, it must be more precisely "bourgeois society," because the state, as the representative of the general, is itself a member of the international society of states. With its dismantling in the modern age, we are now experiencing not only an unbelievable infantilization and hypermoralization, but also an extreme inflation of politics far into bourgeois society. Instead of concentrating on securing the foundations and pillars of our community - why should they

security of the external borders - the silliest social issues such as the question of gender-appropriate toilets or prostitution on sick leave for people in need of care are inflated to a political dimension. In this way, every form of state-political ethics of responsibility is supplanted by an emotionalism based on ethics of conviction.

At the height of the refugee crisis in 2015, British political scientist Anthony Glees said with dismay that Germany was "run by feelings like a hippie state".. In fact, you can't run a state properly like that. The concern of the British people that the character of Europe will change fundamentally as a result of the government's irrational attitude made a decisive contribution to the vote in favor of BREXIT there. The unbelievable political kindergarten that we experience every day in our country must be dissolved as quickly as possible and replaced by a new political elite. We need neither hippies nor small children at the head of our state, but responsible politicians who think about the essential questions of politics: What is the political subject? The people and their nation state. What is the overarching goal of a German government? avert harm from our people and increase their benefit. Who is friend, who is enemy? friend is who serves the interests of the nation, is an enemy, who opposes them – all in line with Carl Schmitt's political concept, i.e. without any hatred or resentment. We must not confuse the political enemy or friend with our private sphere. That means: The enemies remain, but they cannot be destroyed. Naturally, new ones would immediately take their place. So they have to be fended off, kept in check.

Right, but we have to defend ourselves when they are under pressure and put them in their place. They look after their interests like we look after ours. Politics now means exploring where these interests conflict with ours and where there is agreement. To deny that fundamental friends also have inherently agonistic elements and that enemies can exhibit aspects that suggest partial consensus has left the field of sober politics and entered the battlefield of zealots and religious warriors.

Is this friend-foe distinction more on the inside or the outside

related to community affairs? Primarily on foreign policy. As a superior institution, the state must defend itself internally against the access of particular social forces, but its function of self-assertion is primarily directed externally. This requires a state leadership that is independent of foreign directives, capable diplomacy and an intact army with a clear military mandate to defend the country. This ensures the sovereignty of the state and the freedom of its citizens. A foreign-determined, unarmed people is in the long run an unfree people.

Today's civil society can hardly understand the priority given to foreign policy over domestic policy. Shaping the community is, of course, the heart of every policy, its »freestyle«. But it is only possible if this community is also secured from the outside, if the "duty" has been fulfilled. Adenauer once laconically stated: "Domestic policy is the questionHowwe live – foreign policy,ifwe live".

That's a handy, but somewhat abbreviated formula: the scenario of an impending population exchange painted on the wall by critics of immigration turns domestic politics into a question of existence. The overstretching of the criteria of "how" pushes the question "if at all" to extremes. Well, I agree with you that the migration problem has many domestic political aspects, but basically it has a more foreign policy dimension: the top priority is the protection of the external borders, our relationship with the countries of origin, the law on foreigners, etc.

Is foreign policy in the traditional sense still possible? The many ties to supranational institutions and organizations such as the EU, NATO, WTO etc. alone limit the scope of the nation states extremely. That's right, you describe the current status. But that is in a state of upheaval: in the EU, since the so-called refugee crisis, we have had a strong return to the national interests of the individual countries, Great Britain is again going its own way outside the EU, and the new US government under Trump is preaching »America first!« That are all clear signs of a geopolitical turnaround - away from excessive supranational integration towards more national independence. Our »Flavus

Germans" in politics and the media, for whom national sovereignty has never been a relevant category, naturally do not want to go along with it and castigate the paradigm shift as "the end of our western community of values". But it is merely the return to political normality. Our political class still has a steep learning curve ahead of it. She already panics when the US announces a trade war.

Wouldn't such a trade war actually be fatal for our export-dependent economy? Even if we Germans were threatened with economic problems and pain for a certain time: such a political-economic reality shock should make us reconsider the one-sided export orientation of our economy and look out for possible alternatives. The boycott against Putin's Russia as a result of the crisis in Ukraine - quite apart from how real or fabricated this crisis was - has already done more good than harm to the Russian economy, which cannot be said of the export-oriented German economy. Many long-established and fruitful relationships have probably been sacrificed forever on the altar of Western loyalty to the alliance, while the Russian economy has diversified and become more self-sufficient overall. That could also be good for the German economy and make it less susceptible to disruption in the international financial market, in line with its capacity to perform. In addition, such a development could also be understood as “re-democratization”, because the principle of popular sovereignty can only be realized in economically sovereign states, as the constitutional lawyer Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider emphasizes.

Based on what you have said so far, I must address you as a dedicated "anti-globalist"! Well, globalization is a complex concept. And to a certain extent globalization is even a natural process. Nevertheless, globalization must be shaped under the primacy of national politics, which also includes democratic, social and, above all, ecological criteria. The hysterical diesel debate in Germany has at least had something good where it touched on the ecological consequences of globalization: container ships are the logistical mainstays of the much-vaunted international division of labor and their trade. The biggest fifteen alone

of them emit more harmful sulfur oxides every year than all 760 million cars worldwide! These are figures that not only make it clear that diesel driving bans in Germany are an absurd political demand that massively violates German interests, but also make it clear to us what a horrendous ecological price products made in distant countries have in addition to their pure production price. And our conscience should become even worse when we look at which products are often involved - namely junk and seasonal items for quick consumption fun that become mountains of rubbish after a very short time. I'm talking about several million tons of plastic waste that are transported halfway around the world every year in order to maximize profits for global companies.

We are currently experiencing a decline in economic globalization on the part of traditional free trade nations such as the USA. Are you also striving for a new German "isolationism" in the style of the Trump administration? No, I think close cooperation, especially between European countries, makes sense. In contrast to the geopoliticians in the USA, we live with the huge Russia, as well as with Turkey, on a double continent. Between Germany and the USA lies a world ocean, between Germany and Russia a few hundred kilometers overland! Our relationship with the Eastern European countries has always been more inevitable than that of the Italians and French because of the situation. With that comes a responsibility. We must consider for ourselves how we want to set up these conditions and we cannot make ourselves impossible for all of our neighbors out of sheer loyalty to the US-led NATO. Sooner or later we will be drawn into this conflict. Compliance will not protect us from that others assert their interests in cool consideration. The old economic war of the sea powers Great Britain and the USA against the continent in the 20th century continues to feed the conflict dynamics of the 21st century. It is in the interests of the continent and the world that we take note of the situation and thereby avert the next catastrophe.

And the European Community is good as such a peacemaking tool?

Yes, but not in the sense of today's EU. It can only be cooperation between sovereign nation states on a voluntary basis and should be limited to areas such as defence, the economy and individual major projects.

So you are against European unification? Wait a minute, the EU is not the same as Europe! This is one of the biggest political lies that the political-media class is spreading into the brains of the European people. Do Switzerland and Norway not belong to our continent? In addition, we are always being told: Whoever is against the EU is for nationalism and war. The peace in Europe has been severely disturbed by the unfortunate policy of Brussels and the ECB - such as the so-called euro rescue or the inability to effectively protect Europe's external borders from illegal immigration - and the atmosphere between the member countries is more hostile than ever. The Europe before the Maastricht Treaty, ie the "Europe of the fatherlands", was the peaceful phase of European unification because it was guided by the principle of unity in diversity. I am convinced that the EU has no future because it goes against the essence of true Europe. And the euro has no future because a common currency can only thrive on the basis of a common economic mentality. We should therefore start thinking now about alternative forms of European cooperation.

Do you already have some clues? It is not yet possible to say exactly what a new European architecture will look like. As I said, the basis should be respect for national sovereignty as well as cultural and ethnic autonomy. Any form of disenfranchisement and leveling is to be rejected. That means no isolation or isolation. Due to our geopolitical situation alone, we Germans have a great interest in a prosperous modus vivendi with our neighboring countries and friendly peoples and tribes. Such a Central European peace order would also be the optimal basis for a lasting settlement with Russia. I support this very much, also because I know that there can never be a lasting peace in Europe against Russia, but only with Russia.

This goes in the direction of a new large-scale order, as developed by Carl Schmitt at the end of the 1930s. The idea of a federative Central Europe with a narrow economic

Cooperation is older and was brought into the political debate by the great liberal Friedrich Naumann during the time of World War I. In the form it was then, it is unsuitable for solving the current problems. But a strongly modified concept, adapted to today's conditions, would be in contrast to the egalitarian centralism the EU bureaucracy on the different mentalities, stages of development and cultural peculiarities of the European peoples.

Already at the Congress of Vienna Metternich knew how to counteract all attempts by England aimed at humiliating and restricting Russia. According to his plans, there would already have been a kind of "privileged partnership" with the Ottoman Empire. His far-sightedness brought Europe a century of peace. Has the now good European idea been hijacked and the approach of a good order replaced with globalist imperialism? In general, the model of a supranational federation of states is a possible counter-proposal to the utopia of world society, as propagated by the globalists under the keywords "world republic", "cosmopolitan democracy" or "global governance". Even the connection of this approach with the term "democracy" is obscure, since history shows that democracy and size are in a tense relationship. The political scientist Henning Ottmann has in his history of political thoughtpointed out: the larger the territory and the number of citizens and the more diverse the languages and cultures are, the less likely is a democratic constitution. Austro-Hungarian Empire, often wrongly denigrated as a prison for nations, could easily be cited as a counter-example.

Tragically, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who was the bearer of hope for reconciliation between the Slavic ethnic groups, passively provided the cause for the great genocide by assassinating him and his wife. However, the overstretched Austro-Hungarian Empire was a dangerous source of conflict. The establishment of relatively autonomous large areas would be a viable middle ground between a unipolar and multipolar world order and, with the limitation to smaller, manageable units for the self-determination of the peoples, would offer greater chances of success.

But is the idea of the »larger area« still applicable today? Of course, it would have to be further developed and freed from the baggage of the time – above all from Nazi imperialism, which disregarded the right of peoples to self-determination and favored the principle of race instead of national identities. National selfdetermination must never be tampered with, any renunciation of sovereignty in a supranational association must be based on voluntariness and free decision-making. Under this premise, the basic ideas from the first half of the last century are quite interesting and should be included in the conception of alternative models. What further developments are you thinking of?

The "ban on intervention by non-regional powers" demanded by Schmitt, for example, is highly topical, but after the bad experiences of the past it would have to be supplemented by the "ban on investment in non-regional capital" and the "ban on migration of non-regional populations". Trump's announced withdrawal of US interventionism, his "economic nationalism" and his rejection of mass migration are the starting signal for a global restructuring that would be an attractive option for Europe, Asia and Latin America in particular. Samuel Huntington has in his epochal workClash of Civilizationsdefined seven to eight major cultural areas that could represent an initial orientation matrix. A lot is already happening below this level: The cooperating Visegrád states are showing interesting approaches to an alternative order to the centralized EU for Central and Eastern Europe. However, there will still be a long way to go before new, long-term stable systems are established.

Yes, the pan-European remigration project alone, i.e. the orderly return of migrants who cannot be integrated here to their original home countries, will be a major challenge and take many years. This requires intensive cooperation between the European countries concerned and the African and Asian countries receiving the migrants. All future foreign relations should be designed according to the basic principle of reciprocity, i.e. strive for a fair balance without

neglecting their own national interests. Otherwise, of course, after decades of misguided developments, all countries will have to clean up their own houses and put things in order. Every nation should do this according to its own standards and ideas, in accordance with the principle of selfdetermination under international law. For this we need peace, time and – as I mentioned earlier – an open debate.

Is our people, in their inner turmoil and identity crisis, willing and able to do this? The most important thing in a new beginning will be that after times of bitter confrontation and narrow-minded partisanship, we approach each other again and seek dialogue with our former political opponents. We Germans have sunk to a mere populace in the wake of western decadent liberalism and escalating party rule. By traditional standards, we are in an extremely miserable state. This is largely due to the even more miserable political leadership in the country, because, according to Spengler, a people is what you make of it. The popular sentence of many patriots »I am proud to be a German« is difficult for me to say in view of our current situation and applies more to the past than to the present.

Would it be desirable to give this statement a basis again? Yes absolutely. Of course, we have an ideal-typical idea, a perhaps somewhat transfigured picture of our people, but it serves as a guiding star for our task of self-improvement - as is already widespread today in a much smaller dimension in individual »self-optimization«.

Goethe summarized this in the sentence: 'If we only take people as they are, we make them worse; if we treat them as if they were what they ought to be, we will take them where they need to be taken." This corresponds to the Aristotelian idea of entelechy or Nietzsche's »Become who you are«. Every thing and life in this world - including a people - is given the task of self-development. In order to become a full-fledged, independent and differentiated people as Germans, we need less the misery of disciplinarians than a demanding and supportive political elite that awakens our folk spirits again. And

a general attitude that affirms unity in diversity, because only with strong individuals who feel connected to the whole will we be able to tackle such a large project as the new building of our community.

But is a people even capable of pulling themselves out of the swamp? Machiavelli vehemently denied that. He assumed a »uomo virtuoso« who could only put a shattered community back in order as the sole holder of state power. But close communication and cooperation with the people would also be indispensable for plural leadership. Does such a new elite already exist, perhaps waiting in the background? No, only in very modest approaches. The problem in Germany today is that the political class ignores the natural cycle of elite formation and - hindered the replacement for many years, so that a counter-elite could only form in a rudimentary manner. We also notice this sensitively in the party opposition. The necessary change of elites will therefore drag on for a long time, since most of the necessary forces first have to be formed from scratch. Until then, we're forced to improvise.

Is that an acceptable option? We have no alternative here. Prussia also needed at least two royal periods to build up an intact civil and military civil service. Something like this doesn't happen overnight. Our natural allies are all the specialist and functional elites in the middle ranks, who are being pushed in the wrong direction by irresponsible leadership and are largely dissatisfied with the prevailing politics. These are the people who, just like the police officers, teachers, judges and doctors, still carry this state with their service ethos, although they experience their daily work as increasingly pointless.

After all the comments on the interior and exterior of the new building, do you actually see yourself more in the role of a rebel or that of a political designer? I definitely like the second role better. We are only reluctant to be in the opposition because we consider the current policy to be misguided and no longer believe in a real change of course on the part of the ruling elites. We can

Unfortunately, we don't choose the tasks that time places on us. But the creative shaping and forming of a community for the benefit of its citizens moves much more positive energy in me than the catechontic struggle against a national apocalypse. This, in turn, has its good side: the anticipation of a future renewal transforms my tiresome political duty into a passionate inclination. I'm always pleasantly surprised at the abundance of alternative approaches and ideas that we have in our country that have so far been untapped and ignored by the prevailing politicians. My wish is to mobilize exactly this creative potential and to give them a chance to develop. It is important that an agreement is reached across all political and ideological divisions. I am saddened by the current state of inner turmoil that arose from ideologization and the split between light and dark Germany. The party spirit must be overcome, internal unity established.

Doesn't this mean a new gray conformity? No, unity is not uniformity, which would be based on coercion and levelling. Real unity arises from the love of diversity: the people are an extremely complex "motley bunch" whose colorful splendor we absolutely want to preserve - in significant parts even have to restore first. In the future community everyone should have their place and value and be able to develop according to the Prussian principle of tolerance without endangering the whole.

Will it also be about a re-Prussianification of Germany? Not only, but Prussia will play a special role. In his novel The father Jochen Klepper described the breach of Friedrich Wilhelm I with the representative pomp of his father. The Soldier King reduced the expenses for the court to a fifth and paid off the national debt. He avoided the oversized castles and instead expanded Potsdam into a modest but functional city. It contains a phrase that would do us good in the current situation. Because the ugly, brutal sultan's palace on the Spree, also known as the Chancellery, is symbolic of the megalomania of the German politician caste, who today rule the world instead of tanks, simply because of its gigantic dimensions - it is larger than the White House or the Élysée Palace harassed and threatened with aggressive hypermoralism. One almost wants the area to be demolished and returned to the people in the form of a

harmonious affiliation to the Tiergarten. But the high costs of this project make the Prussian in me think about it... I have to reject the skewed comparison of this built hubris with the modestly elegant pavilion architecture of the Seraglio in Istanbul. However, I can't think of anything that compares to it. Even the new Reich Chancellery and the Soviet architecture in the Kremlin were more tasteful. It is probably not the size and brutality that is characteristic, but rather the self-disagreement and mendacity in this lack of formal language. But surely other, more modest places could also be found in Berlin? Absolutely, but they simply take the imaginary move of the government to Potsdam as a meaningful political metaphor: Prussia, as a historical phenomenon, is of elementary importance for the renewal of our community. By that I mean not only his well-known values and virtues, but also his institutional role models such as the state apparatus, the army and the education system. Prussia is also the necessary kick in the ass of the German Winkelried - a kind of productive self-chastity of the Germans in front of all too much comfortable narrowness and local smallness. The Prussian spirit still breathes most strongly in Potsdam, despite the devastating destruction of World War II. This should not be a credo against Bonn as a traditional university city and the capital Berlin, which has its special appeal as a lively metropolis. But one should also consider that governing requires rest and contemplation, a kind of spiritual retreat. The genius loci of Prussian Arcadia in the vicinity of Berlin and Potsdam offers this to an exceptional degree. A synthesis of the spirit of Potsdam and Weimar would be good for the German community of the future. Alongside the Prussian "Suum cuique" there should be the motto of German classicism: "Noble be man, helpful and good." A synthesis of the spirit of Potsdam and Weimar would be good for the German community of the future. Alongside the Prussian "Suum cuique" there should be the motto of German classicism: "Noble be man, helpful and good." A synthesis of the spirit of Potsdam and Weimar would be good for the German community of the future. Alongside the Prussian "Suum cuique" there should be the motto of German classicism: "Noble be man, helpful and good."

But everything, no matter how noble and well-founded, is still subject to the proviso of transience? Naturally. Even the best possible order will eventually become rotten and brittle and then deserves to be replaced by other, unused forces. This is part of the normal cycle of history. For me, the decisive factor is whether or not our country and our people remain the central point of reference for those responsible for politics, despite the historical changes, changes and ruptures. It's not the outer forms - the

are subject to ongoing natural change - but the inner substances from which the genius of the people draws its strength and which must be preserved. How do you see the chances of one day implementing your bold ideas? With a lot of energy and even more fortune we will finally create Bonhoeffer's fragments. Fragments hopefully of the second kind.

And what if your ambitious projects fail before then and completely different forces prevail in politics? Then I will remember my father's comforting advice: "In the end, there is still a good wine and philosophy."

PERSONAL REGISTER

Adenauer, Konrad36et seq.79,154,275 Aick, Gerhard41 Andreas-Salomé, Lou117 Arendt, Hannah117

Aristotle225 Arminius161,214 Arnim, Achim von157 Arnim, Bettina von157 Arnim, Herbert von59 Bach, Johann Sebastian50 Beauvoir, Simone de117 Bebel, August110

Becker, Holger247 Beleites, Michael45 Bisky, Lothar248 Bismarck, Otto Von79,124,142,149,151et seq.213 Boeckelmann, Frank186 Boehme, Jacob72f. Böll, Heinrich221

Borne, Ludwig214,221 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich11,60,77,291 Borchmeyer, Dieter193 Brown, Otto36 Brecht, Bertolt247 Broder, Henryk68 Buber, Martin83et seq.95,97,101f. Burke, Edmund70 Caspart, Wolfgang105 Chamisso, Adelbert von131 Chebli, Sawsan71 Chnodomar212

Commenda, Othmar202 Coudenhove-Kalergi, Nicholas156 Dalai Lama140 Debray, Regris272 Dehler, Thomas154 Doorn, Jacobus Adrianus Antonius van107 Dostoyevsky, Fyodor Mikhailovich211 Eckhart, master72f. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Irenaeus 98 Eliot, Thomas Stearns263 Angel, Katie169

Engels, David203,252 Erdogan, Recep130 Fernau, Joachim112,119 Fichte, Johann Gottlieb75 Finkielkraut, Alain201 Fischer, Klaus248 Fontane, Theodore62

Franz Ferdinand, Archduke282 Friedman, Milton244 Frederick I, Prussia288 Frederick II, HRR81,159 Frederick II, Prussia31, 50,81,136 Friedrich, Caspar David80 Fühmann, Franz160

Gabriel, Siegmar143

Gauland, Alexander68,156,234,236f.241 Gaulle, Charles de37 Gauss, Carl Friedrich 121 Gehlen, Arnold17,128 Geissler, Heiner 156

George, Stephen78

Glees, Anthony273 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von44,48,75,81,150,158,285 Gramkow, Angelika247 Gramsci, Antonio16,221 Graudin, Herman176 Guérot, Ulrike201

Gysi, Gregory248 Habermas, Jurgen125 Habsburg, Otto von105 Havden, Michael204

Havel, Vaclav146f. Heckel, Hans111 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich75,149,254,272 Heidegger, Martin59,77et seq.117 Heraclitus24

heart, Guido191

Hitler Adolf10f.71,105,136,214 Hobbes, Thomas119f.152 Holderlin, Friedrich77 Honecker, Eric105,247 Hooton, Earnest205

Huntington, Samuel283

Huxley, Aldous78 Isensee, Joseph152

Jirgl, Reinhard262 Jongen, Marc211 Younger, Ernst109,122,217 Julian Apostasta212 Jung, Carl Gustav63,79 Young, Edgar Julius'28,77 Kassmann, Margot132

Kaiser, Benedict238 Kant, Immanuel60,75 Kelle, Birgit114 Klepper, Jochen288 Kisoudis, Dimitrios144 Klages, Ludwig 26,77 Kleine-Hartlage, Manfred186,241 ,262 Kollwitz, Kathe117

Krysmanski, Hans Juergen206 Kubitschek, Goetz93

Lafontaine, Oscar244,249 Langaney, Andre128

Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich84,211

Lichtenberg, Georg Christoph123 Lucanus, Marcus Annaeus212 Lucke, Bernd168,172 Luther, Martin30,211f. 268 Maaz, Hans-Joachim92f.213 Machiavelli, Niccolo153,225f.286 Marcks, Eric264

Martell, Karl252 Martenstein, Harald90 Marwitz, Johann Friedrich Adolf von der32 Maschke, Gunter218f. Matt, Peter von158 McGregor, Neil15,67 Merkel, Angela169,187, 262 Metternich, Klemens Wenzel Lothar von 281 Meuthen, Jorg236f.Michels, Robert227

Moeller, Stefan167

Mohring, Mike169 Mueller, Baal64

Mussolini, Benito142 Napoleon I Bonaparte214 Naumann, Friedrich281

Nauman, Michael68 Nietzsche, Friedrich56f.59,73et seq.117,123,285 Nohles, Christoph121 Obama, Barack208

Özoguz, Aydan198 Ortega y Gasset, José148 Orwell, George78

Ott, Konrad190 Ottman, Henning282

ovid263 Pareto, Vilfredo227 Patzelt, Werner213

Pavlov, Ivan Petrovich93 Petry, Frauke133,168,231 Pirinçci, Akif114,198

Plato148,158,225 Polybius225 Popper, Karl Raimund57,139 PücklerMuskau, Hermann von150 Putin, Vladimir Vladimirovich277 Ramelow, Bodo174,179 Rauch, Christian Daniel 142 Roosevelt, Franklin Delano216 Rosegger, Peter230

Saint-Exupéry, Antoine de122 Salter, Frank187 Sander, Hans-Dietrich263 Sanders, Bernie245 Sartre, Jean Paul117,153 Schachtschneider, Karl Albrecht277 Schadow, Johann Gottfried142 Schäffler, Frank91 Schäuble, Wolfgang132

Shank, Christian169 Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph75 Scheringer, John247 Schiller, Frederick56,75 Schmid, Carlo154 Schmidt, William147,249 Schmidt, Wolfgang48,124 Schmidt, Helmut140

Smith, Carl274,281,283 Schoeps, Julius68 Schopenhauer, Arthur73,75f.268 Schumacher, Kurt37,154 Schumpeter, Joseph263 Sebastian I, Portugal159 Shakespeare, William62 Sieferle, Rolf Peter118 Silone, Ignazio140 Custom, Petra88

Sloterdijk, Peter254

Socrates50

Summer, Michael141 Sorel, Georges160 Spengler, Oswald161,263,285 Stalin, Joseph136 Stauffenberg, Claus Schenk von11,65 Sternberger, Dolf125

Swing, William222 Taghizadegan, Rahim138 Tauber, Peter169 Thalmann, Ernst246 Theodoric D. size7 Tiersch, Friedrich217 Trump, Donald207et seq.237,245,276,278,283 Unruh, Friedrich von155 Virgil62f.

Wagenknecht, Sarah244f.248f. Weber, Max123,162 Wehner, Herbert140 Weidel, Alice236f. Weißmann, Karlheinz119 Wendt, Albert117 Wildenbruch, Ernst von212,216 Winkler, Adalbert von217 Winter, Leon de69 Witt-Stahl, Susann141

Welfare, Matthew167f. Yücel, Deniz132 Zehm, Gunter121,127 Room, Gabrielle248