The struggle against every form of anti-Semitism — from the Left and Islamically motivated — it is our governmental and civic obligation . . . Der Kampf gegen jede Form von Judenfeindlichkeit — von rechts, von links und islamistisch motiviert — ist unsere staatliche und bürgerschaftliche Pflicht . . .
Thus Angela Merkel’s Categorial Imperative: “Jews must be able to feel safe in Germany.” “Juden müssen sich in Deutschland sicher fühlen können.”
Compare this with Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
Immanuel Kant, arguably Germany’s greatest moral philosopher, formulated the signature of his moral philosophy in the famous Categorical Imperative (CI). With it, each and every human being emerges not as an abstraction but as a unique person inviolate and irreplaceable, a creature whose very nature morally forbids that he become merely a means for the designs and ambitions of another. To use another human being as a pure means is to dehumanize him, to turn him into matter. As Kant saw it, human beings as rational creatures were bound by a moral law whose validity was logically tested by its universality. Every individual from the King to the servant was bound by the moral law, even God himself.
Kant stands at the apex of Enlightenment philosophy with David Hume and, like Hume, has been subjected to the rogue reductionism of today’s mini-philosophers, which amounts to scouring the writings of the giants for evidence of “racism,” thumping their chests, and pronouncing the stock anathemas.
For the Germans, Kant no longer resonates. Nowadays it is the ethnomasochistic derangement of their former Chancellor, the perfidious Angela Merkel, as expressed in a recent speech that was made after Hamas’ attack on October 7. Responding to the outpouring of pro-Palestinian demonstrations, she said that “Jews must be able to feel safe in Germany.” Moral rules, obligations, and behavior for the German people, you see, are now circumscribed with the necessity to combat “racism and anti-Semitism” with the weapon of “hate speech.” Kant’s magisterial philosophy of transcendental idealism has given way to Merkel’s degenerate feminist ideology of coerced compassion.
The same style of schoolmarmish scolding aimed at those who might hurt Jewish feelings flourishes here at home. Harvard’s new black lady-president, Claudine Gay, recently made clear what students and faculty were forbidden to say about the current situation in Gaza:
[O]ur community must understand that phrases such as “from the river to the sea” bear specific historical meanings that to a great many people imply the eradication of Jews from Israel and engender both pain and existential fears within our Jewish community. I condemn this phrase and any similarly hurtful phrases. (italics added)
“Similarly hurtful phrases”? Imagine what possibilities that opens up for alliances of the thought-supervisors with the guardians of fragile feelings. From the dictatorship of the proletariat to the dictatorship of killing me with kindness.
The illocutionary force of Merkel’s utterance and what it portends for both German Jews and German gentiles, you might think, would lead the latter to question the sanity of this former East German Communist — or, perhaps to wonder how such a profoundly treacherous personality reached such heights of power. She did, did she not, when in office throw open Germany’s borders and import millions of folks from parts of the world where making Jews feel unsafe is the most popular form of recreation? Also, have not these Third World refugees been unable or unwilling to assimilate to German culture and society with criminal tendencies — as in raping German women on the streets of Cologne — that make all native Germans feel unsafe?
So, for starters, as we all know: Feelings are a very subjective thing, with huge variations in intensity that corelate with different stages and conditions in life such as age, sex, and economic security, to name just some of them. We also know that feelings are not necessarily rational with respect to their causes. It is rational to feel fear when a mugger presses a knife to your throat. It is not rational to feel high hopes for the prospect of wealth with the purchase of a lottery ticket.
With Merkel’s CI, only German Jews get to say what makes them “feel safe,” since no non-Jews would be qualified to judge what makes Jews feel how they feel. The “what” is limited only by the imagination, and self-interest and/or pathologies will dictate what spin to put on the “how.” This means that the moral obligation for non-Jewish Germans to make Jews feel safe is unlimited with no measure to determine what performance satisfies the obligation, and which also means that Jacob’s power to hold Fritz accountable for making him feel safe is arbitrary and unlimited.
I don’t know what acquaintance Mamma, “Mutti” Merkel has with Carl Schmitt’s political philosophy, but it appears that with her imperative (“must”) of Jewish-safe-feelings for the German people, she has put Schmitt’s central concept of the political — “the friend-enemy distinction” — into play. For the Jews “to feel safe” in Germany, they must be confident that their potential “enemies” pose no threat to them. And, consistent with Schmitt’s concept of the political as a potential friend-enemy confrontation, it is, per Merkel, the German Jews who get “to decide” who are their enemies and what mobilization efforts are necessary to achieve and maintain an adequate feeling of safety:
Schmitt claims that one cannot judge, from an external perspective, that a group is morally unjustified in defining its own identity in a certain way and to introduce political enmity, with the attendant possibility of killing, to preserve that identity. Only members of a group are in a position to decide, from the perspective of an existentially affected participant, whether the otherness of another group amounts to a threat to their own form of life and thus potentially requires to be fought.
Given German-Jewish history and that the Jews have established the German-initiated Holocaust at the center of their religion of perpetual victimhood, with the German people as the paradigm of modern, genocidal anti-Semites — Hitler’s willing executioners — the Germans can never be forgiven and must remain in some form as existential enemies of the Jews. The Jews have no incentive or inclination to relinquish their victimhood, and the Germans are fools to believe that the show of any reluctance to embrace their assigned guilt will do anything other than be used to prove that they are still in thrall to Hitler, and will again be “willing executioners” at some future time.
It is not an unreasonable question then to pose: What would make Jews feel safe in Germany?
It would seem that Schmitt’s “friend-enemy” distinction provides the answer. For Jews to feel safe, Germany would have to become a whole lot “less German” up to some vanishing point where the German people of the present bear no resemblance – ethnically-culturally — to the German people of the past. That German “enemy” would have to be effaced. This was the thinking behind the 1944 proposal put forward by Franklin Roosevelt’s Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau Jr.’s — to use starvation, forced labor, and dismantlement of the entire German industrial complex to destroy what was left of a soon-to-be-defeated Third Reich.
The full force of Morgenthau’s Carthaginian peace was never applied as the Western Allies prudently concluded that a strong, rebuilt West Germany was needed as a bulwark against its former ally-turned-enemy, the Soviet Union. The occupying Western Allies’ de-Nazification program, however, turned out in the long term to be a de-Germanizing affair, fulfilling Morgenthau’s goal, albeit with a softer, more gradual, insidious means of implementation. The German people, fully internalizing their guilt, have, nearly 80 years after the end of the Second World War, embraced the multicultural ideology of their Leftist conquerors, with “racism” having become a tool of moral blackmail. This burden of “racism” has been made to weigh particularly heavy on the German people for obvious reasons, and to prove themselves free of it they have had to aggressively de-Germanize themselves.
The German Right-wing party Alternative for Germany (AfD) has recently gained in popularity with the voters by pushing back against the government’s Great Replacement policy that has already made Germany at lot “less German” — and a lot less safe. However, when the voters democratically support a party that the Left and center parties morally disapprove of, they respond by attempting to criminalize it.
The Saxony-Anhalt state chapter of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has been classified as a right-wing extremist group by state-level intelligence authorities tasked with surveilling anti-constitutional groups.
AfD is now classified as having “definitely extremist aspirations” — the highest threat category used by the domestic intelligence service, which allows intelligence services to increase monitoring of the party branch.
According to the authorities, the party violates human dignity, the principle of democracy and the rule of law — three pillars of the German constitution. Particularly problematic is AfD’s disregard for human dignity, which it demonstrates by calling migrants “invaders,” “intruders” and “culturally alien supply migrants” . . .
Again, we see how Schmitt’s “friend-enemy” distinction works in contemporary German politics. While the German Jews get “to decide” who the enemy is and designate them as their historic, existential enemies — “Nazis” — the AfD isn’t permitted “to decide,” i.e. to observe the non-German speaking, culturally hostile hordes invading their borders and then use descriptors that accurately capture the reality of the current migration crisis. The AfD has in effect been declared the enemy, an existential threat to the established order. Calling them names apparently does not “violate” their “human dignity.”
Again, from Politico:
Strong evidence of democratic violations by the [AfD] party — including Islamophobic, antisemitic and racist statements by elected officials — were collected by the German authorities and ‘prove the efforts of this party against the free democratic basic order,’ said Jochen Hollmann, the head of Saxony-Anhalt’s Office for the Protection of the Constitution, to German news outlet mdr on Tuesday.
Give that hermeneutical ring on your finger a twist and it should tell you that “Islamophobic, antisemitic and racist statements by elected officials” proves “the efforts of this party against the free democratic basic order” is a barely coded message that says that white Germans are no longer the future of Germany. Germany’s “principle of democracy” does not include freedom of speech for native Germans.
The political dynamics of “racism and anti-Semitism” going on in Germany are being replicated in the United States, with the Republicans aping Angela Merkel’s making the Jews “feel safe” and the Democrats split between railing against the genocidal Zionists and affirming Israel’s right to exist. You do have to relish the dilemma that the Left’s support for Muslim mass migration to the West has put them in. What to do about those brown victims of white racism who are now doing their “anti-Semitic” war dance in the big city streets?
It is best, I believe, not to view the mounting political challenges as resolvable within the conventions of our traditional two-party system. It is better to employ the friend-enemy distinction in framing the problems and determining how to act. The Republicans serve Israeli-Jewish interests, and the Democrats have been busy importing the replacement population for white people. The political establishment is our enemy, which means, practically speaking, we must be realistic and expect them to continue to treat us as enemies. It is to our advantage to convince beleaguered white Americans outside of our ranks of this reality in order to grow our base of resistance. We also should support and applaud the efforts to weaken Israel and strenuously resist all attempts to bring Palestinian refugees to our shores.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
Ich Klage an: Pro-Genocide Nazi Propaganda or Humanitarian Masterpiece? Part 1
Toward a New Spiritual Revolution
The Fear of Writing
Lamentations for a City
Jonathan Bowden’s The Cultured Thug
David Zsutty Introduces the Homeland Institute: Transcript
“A Few More Steps and We Were . . . On Some Edge of Things”: Staircases That Lead Nowhere, Part 2