Frank W. Haubold

Frank W. Haubold, born 1955 in East Germany, has a PhD in computer science and is an author.

Source: shutterstock The Uckermark, north of Berlin: What made it produce Merkel?

The German Chancellor's policies:An Affliction Called Merkel

What’s driving her?

I wrote the first version of this essay in the fall of 2015, when many negative developments were foreseeable, but there was still some hope that the irresponsible actions of the Chancellor and her entourage could be stopped. These hopes have not been fulfilled, although opposition forces have meanwhile established themselves in the form of the AfD and the ‘Werteunion’ (‘Union of Values’, a conservative caucus within the CDU), but by and large they have no chance against the cartel of the old parties, official churches, trade unions, state-funded artists, state-contracted scientists and a media converted into propaganda institutions. As depressing as this finding may be, it is nevertheless worth updating the article from that time, because history has a long perspective.

It is one of the mysteries of disastrous social developments that the worst visitations often come in the guise of supposed harmlessness and colourlessness on the part of the main actors, who therefore are not at first taken seriously enough.

Which CDU-grandee, at the beginning of the 1990s, would have expected that of all people ‘Kohl's girl,’ an in every respect unspectacular personality with the charisma of a youth hostel manager, would one day become the long-standing party leader of the CDU and Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany? Probably the gentlemen would have slapped their thighs laughing at this absurd seeming notion, added some unflattering remarks about the appearance of the young politician and returned to the agenda of the day.

These gentlemen, if they are still in office at all, must by now be laughing on the other side of their faces, as must be all the others who saw in the former communist FDJ (‘Free German Youth’) secretary from the ‘Uckermark’ boondocks a harmless, but strictly loyal CDU party soldier.

The goal-driven perfidiousness with which she pushed her patron Helmut Kohl, and his chosen successor Wolfgang Schäuble, from the throne under the pretext of investigations being the only way, would have been worthy of a Borgia, as would the gradual cleansing of the party of all the functionaries whose ambitions might possibly have become dangerous to her. It was only the method that had changed from the courtly intrigues of the Middle Ages, for now, instead of the stiletto or the hemlock cup, the media served as the instrument of social annihilation. Merkel's close relationship to powerful media people, like Friede Springer and Liz Mohn, benefited her as much as the nimbus of naïve righteousness that still surrounded her in public.

In this way she expanded her position of power step by step, and replaced the fired politicians with devoted claqueurs like Ronald Pofalla and Peter Tauber, who, although no longer in office, are symptomatic of this kind of submissive apparatchik. This was indeed noticed in the party and in public, but since the election results of the CDU remained largely constant and the damage to society as a whole was initially limited, there was hardly any open resistance.

This did not even change when the current Chancellor and sole ruler of the CDU Angela Merkel suddenly decided on her own, in 2011, in the wake of a nuclear power plant accident in far-away Japan triggered by a tsunami, to terminate the laboriously negotiated nuclear compromise and thus end the peaceful use of nuclear energy in the Federal Republic of Germany.

‘Petty-minded’ objections such as the reference to the low risk of tsunamis and earthquakes in this country and the simultaneous expansion of nuclear power plants in almost all neighbouring countries were swept aside, as were the economic follow-up costs, which are now approaching the trillion mark. But what do figures mean if you can legally oblige citizens and consumers to pay the bill without any trouble? Even the ‘Welt’ newspaper, which supports Merkel, recently had no choice but to admit that the so-called energy system transformation has failed: “The goals of the energy system transformation are being missed. Despite the many billions, there is no reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, no lower energy consumption, no higher energy productivity and no more use of renewable energy sources, as the Federal Audit Office stated months ago. German consumers and companies are paying the highest electricity and gas prices in the world for this.”

For Merkel personally, however, her manoeuvre, which was aimed solely at maintaining power, paid off politically, for by outdoing even the Greens in the matter of nuclear phase-out, the CDU won (at the time) numerous votes from the affluent Green bourgeois milieu and once again became the strongest force in the 2017 Bundestag elections. This has changed in the course of the current climate hysteria, and even if the federal government is now trying to jump on the Greta bandwagon with the (also completely crazy) decisions to abandon coal-fired power generation, only the Greens are currently benefiting from the campaign. But even that’s probably not such a bad thing for the Chancellor, because after the decline of the SPD, the Greens are now offering to be a new coalition partner. Citizens will have to pay the bill twice over for these power-political maneuvers, which have nothing to do with responsible energy policies: through excessive energy prices and by the loss of the supply security, culminating in regionwide power failures, which are inevitable without having weather-independent energy sources.

In the case of the precipitous and economically devastating nuclear power phase-out, allowances could still be made for the Chancellor having reacted to an external situation, but there is no excuse whatsoever for her interference in Ukraine's internal affairs and the lasting damage to relations with the Russian Federation. Anyone who, after two devastating world wars with wounds that are nowhere near close to having healed and decades of mutual nuclear threat during the Cold War, needlessly throws overboard a foreign policy toward the East, which until then had been based on the reconciliation of interests, détente and economic cooperation, is either oblivious to history or potentially suicidal, perhaps even both.

From the outset, the unapologetic interference of the CDU (which was only surpassed by the anti-Russian tirades of the Soros-friendly ‘Greens’) via the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in the internal affairs of the fragile multi-ethnic state of Ukraine had as its aim the overthrow of the Yanukovych government. This destabilization campaign, in cooperation with the USA and some former Eastern bloc countries, finally had the desired success when right-wing extremist thugs overthrew the freely elected government and an ultra-nationalist junta usurped power in Kiev. The conflict with the more Russia-friendly population in the eastern parts of the country was thus inevitable, leading to a bloody civil war that claimed the lives of thousands of civilians, rebels and soldiers.

The West and especially the German government and its media auxiliaries then staged an unprecedented propaganda campaign against Russia over the alleged ‘annexation’ of the Crimea, although even Western opinion research institutes (including the Pew Research Center) had to admit that the referendum decision had been supported by a convincing majority of the local population. It was also the Merkel government, working side by side with the USA, that initiated, against the will of some other EU countries, the escalation of sanctions against Russia which failed to achieve any of its political goals, but caused enormous damage to its own export economy and endangered or destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs, especially in small and medium-sized businesses. At the same time, billions of taxpayers' money was pumped into Kiev to support the regime there, which almost without exception ended up in the pockets of criminal oligarchs who have been plundering Ukraine for many years. Merkel had not only ruined relations with Russia, but also caused irreparable damage to her own economy.

That conflict was not yet defused when Greece's permanent crisis was once again making headlines, this time with the danger of national bankruptcy, which simultaneously would have meant the total loss of the German taxpayers' money (about 100 billion euros) pumped to Athens as part of the ‘bank rescue.’ To conceal this fact, Merkel and Schäuble then staged a diversionary manoeuvre of unprecedented perfidiousness by escalating the conflict with Greece's newly elected left-wing government to the point of insolvency, in order to eventually blackmail media-effective concessions, the actual effect of which on the budget, when viewed realistically, is virtually zero. However, the aim of the theatrical thunder was solely to deceive the domestic audience, who was meant to gain the impression that the federal government was actually negotiating in the taxpayer's interest by vehemently opposing a debt cut. However, none of this is real, because the loans granted in the past were and are irretrievably lost, even if they are still managed as assumed assets. In the interim, the German government and the EU have even transferred billions more to Athens, claiming these rescue packages are “the only way,” thus throwing good money after bad (because already lost) money. In economic criminal law such actions are called embezzlement, and aiding and abetting delayed filing of insolvency, in politics they go unpunished . . .

However, the increasing migration pressure from North Africa, the Arab region and the Balkans, as well as the miserable living conditions in the refugee camps of Turkey and Jordan, offered ideal conditions for Merkel to present herself as Europe's model moralist after the rather reputation-damaging Greek poker game, and at the same time to put the left and the Greens in the shade by placing herself at the head of the immigration campaign against her own population. Which commentator would dare to make accusations about the generosity of ‘Mutti’ Courage in the face of the media-effective presentation of doe-eyed refugee children? Unsuspecting media consumers therefore believe to this day that Merkel's attitude to the immigration issue has something to do with morality or even compassion. However, all the facts speak against it:

The devastating war of terror against Syria had back then (2015) already lasted four years and would have long since ended, if the West and its allies Saudi Arabia and Turkey had not continued to finance and arm the rebels/terrorists to overthrow the Assad government. For many years, the Federal Republic of Germany has been supplying the clerical-fascist regime in Riyadh with the most modern weapons, and curries favor with the government Erdoğan, which also supports the jihadist gangs in Syria. Consequently, Merkel ‘rescued’ refugees who would not exist without the interference of the West.

The Chancellor will also be aware that 70 per cent of the illegal immigrants entering the country have concealed their identity and are therefore unlikely to be who they pretended to be, namely refugees from war or civil war. Very few of them were and are women and children, which is probably a novelty in the world history of refugee movements. As a result, she also knows where a not inconsiderable number of asylum seekers come from, namely the non-persecuting states of Arabia, the Balkans and Africa.

With the help of compliant media, Merkel and her entourage have so far managed to impose views and language regulations that defy reality. Thus, illegal immigrants become “refugees,” critics of Merkel's asylum policy become “xenophobes” and deserters, failed militiamen, adventurers and ordinary criminals become “persecuted.” The supposed news agency dpa, in the style of an Orwellian Ministry of Truth, sets out the official language regulations, which are strictly adhered to by all mainstream media. Whoever won’t follow these or even protests against the government policy, therefore belongs logically to the “right wing extremists” or even to a “brown mob” and may be called anything from “agitator,” “Nazi,” “racist” to simply “lowlifes.”

The campaign reached an inglorious climax in the Chemnitz case last summer. Even for a community not poor in political scandals like the Federal Republic of Germany, it is a novelty that a Chancellor and her government spokesperson do not condemn a murder/killing of a fellow countryman, but untruthfully denounce the protests of the population against this bloody crime in front of the world as “manhunts against foreigners.” After the responsible authorities (police, public prosecutor's office, constitutional protection) had denied the alleged “manhunts” and thus proved the chancellor to be a liar, it was not the government spokesperson and chancellor who had to leave office, but the president of the constitutional protection authority who had pointed out the untruth of the government. The smear campaign against Hans-Georg Maaßen, staged by Merkel, her ‘red-green’ friends and media close to the government, ended as expected with the victory of the propaganda lie over the truth. Maaßen was sent into retirement and replaced by a Merkel-faithful named Thomas Haldenwang, who in the meantime, following instructions, and unlawfully, has already publicly declared that his organization was “considering” putting the AfD “underobservation.” This would also explain the purpose of the exercise: the transformation of previously non-partisan institutions and services into an instrument of repression of the government and the established parties.

No one should continue to believe that Merkel and her advisers are unaware of the Federal Criminal Police Office's crime statistics in the context of immigration, which are becoming more dramatic from year to year. In 2018 alone, immigrants committed 296,226 crimes and there were 165,769 registered suspects. That is 9.7 per cent of all crimes solved in 2018, a new record. The number of indigenous victims of immigrant crime even rose by 17 per cent to 46,336. In short, Merkel knows very well what she’s doing and the damage her country's internal security is inevitably suffering. It is also an open secret that 80 to 90 percent of illegal immigrants cannot be placed on the labor market and will therefore be living off the local taxpayer.

So the final question arises: What is motivating the Chancellor to knowingly damage German domestic energy and foreign trade, endanger the internal and external security of Germany, and expose the social, religious and community structures of this country to distortions that are quite literally threatening its very existence.

It can't just be unquestioning obedience to the US, although this is a constant in Merkel's chancellorship. Washington is not interested in the German nuclear energy generation, nor is it interested in the destabilization of Germany by predominantly Muslim immigrants, who ultimately pose a security risk to US institutions and companies there.

So why the Chancellor's stubborn adherence to this disastrous policy? Is it revenge on her critics by an underestimated, often humiliated and ridiculed politician, or is there an even deeper psychological problem behind it? Some of the Chancellor's behavioral problems suggest that she is at least subliminally beginning to become aware of the wrong she has done to this country and its citizens. But that does little to help the victims of her devastating policies and does nothing to change the fact that every additional day of Merkel's term in office causes lasting and irreversible damage to Germany.

Translated from eigentümlich frei, where the original article was published on July 15th 2019.

Support Us

You can read equity & freedom for free, but making it costs real money. So please support us!

Donors will be given exclusive access to the comment section.