“Fundamental rights: the central foundation of democracies”
[This interview posted on June 18, 2025 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.oekologiepolitik.de/2025/06/18/grundrechte-das-zentrale-fundament-von-demokratien/.]
During the coronavirus pandemic, our fundamental rights were severely curtailed. For the initiator of the Economy for the Common Good, this was an impetus to think thoroughly about the significance of fundamental rights for our democracy and for the common good. And about measures to strengthen fundamental rights.
Interview with Christian Felber
EcologyPolitics: Mr. Felber, how are democracy, the common good, and fundamental rights related to each other?
Christian Felber: Fundamental rights are the central foundation and distinguishing feature of democracies. The better fundamental rights are protected in a state, the more democratic it can be considered; conversely, increasing restrictions on fundamental rights lead to autocracy and dictatorship. The common good is abstract at first, but it is explicitly the purpose of democracy. The decisive factor is how the definition is arrived at. The more democratically it is defined, the more reliable its content. My modest formula: The common good is made up of fundamental values, basic needs, and fundamental rights. This also resolves the tension between the common good and human dignity. If fundamental rights are missing from the understanding of the common good, there is a danger that a community will slide toward totalitarianism, whether to the right or to the left.
Why did you write a book about fundamental rights?
Fundamental rights are human rights. They have come under increasing pressure recently. The specific trigger was the surprisingly authoritarian crisis management during the coronavirus pandemic, even in many liberal democracies. Up to 25 fundamental rights were restricted worldwide: from the protection of life and physical integrity to children’s rights and the right to education to the right to social security and protection from hunger. If anyone had proposed this as a goal, it would have triggered a democracy alarm of the highest order among large sections of the population. But during the pandemic, one government after another copied each other, and a significant portion of the population accepted it. I want to show three things with this book. First, the massive restrictions were not necessary; countries without lockdowns got through the crisis better. Second, the invasive measures and the discourse surrounding them have divided our society in a lasting way. Third, I want to avoid repeating the same mistake in future crises by providing stronger legal protection for fundamental rights.
How did politics slide into authoritarianism to such an extent?
A number of factors came together. It is striking—and this should also be examined in a thorough review—that the phenomenon of “lockdown” did not exist in epidemiology until 2020. The term comes from prison management and refers to the punishment of prisoners for misconduct. But a democracy is not a prison, and citizens are not prisoners. This was already a linguistic humiliation of the sovereign. The first lockdown originated in China. What was striking was the rapid praise for the Chinese approach by the WHO Director-General, even though this was not part of the WHO’s pandemic preparedness measures. This praise made it easier for democracies to follow the authoritarian path. Not all of them did so. Sweden stuck to its long-established pandemic plan. From a historical perspective, one could say: better to learn from democracies than from dictatorships. This was true of neoliberalism, which came from General Pinochet’s Chile, and now it is true of lockdowns.
What role did the media play?
According to several studies, the quality media hardly fulfilled their traditional role of monitoring those in power and instead uncritically supported the government line. This was achieved either by virtually failing to report on the negative consequences of restrictions on fundamental rights or by conducting one-sided fact checks of critical voices. The media played along with the “rally round the flag” mentality, which is an indication that they accepted the framing of the pandemic as a “war” instead of deconstructing this frame and questioning the accompanying state of emergency. A pandemic is not a war. Perhaps the most counterproductive contribution was the division of society into “solidarity” supporters of government measures and “corona deniers,” “lateral thinkers,” or even “Covidiots.” As a result, the usual democratic discourse in all its shades was absent. I am convinced that the majority of the population would not have agreed with either of the two extreme poles of “lockdown” or “let it run its course” if moderate middle ground—similar to that in Sweden—had been presented and discussed, e.g., measures based on recommendations and laws, but without restrictions on fundamental rights. These moderate middle grounds were made invisible. Only the extremes were discussed. This divided society. In my opinion, this failure on the part of those shaping public discourse should be addressed as a matter of urgency.
What role did language play?
“Lockdown” actually speaks for itself; it is a knockdown of democracy. A more subtle manipulation was the equating of critics of government measures with “opponents of measures.” But just as critics of SUVs are not opponents of mobility and critics of nuclear power are not enemies of energy, many critics of Covid-19 only rejected certain measures, not measures per se. It would have been just as possible to describe these critics as “defenders of fundamental rights.” The tables could have been turned completely: supporters of the government’s course could just as easily have been framed as “opponents of fundamental rights” as defenders of fundamental rights were labeled “conspiracy theorists,” “hoaxers,” or “science deniers.” That would have been just as unobjective, but it shows how massively and effectively language was manipulated here.
What are the most important measures to prevent such a slide into authoritarianism from repeating itself in the next pandemic or other crises?
In addition to restoring a minimum level of ethical discourse and rediscovering a pluralistic discourse in the media and academia that is worthy of a democracy, the most important thing, in my view, is to abandon the “emergency mentality.” This, in conjunction with fearmongering and war rhetoric, paves the way for the restriction of fundamental rights. Rhetorically, the next emergency is already upon us. I think it would be helpful to “defuse” the so-called “emergency laws” of 1968 so that massive restrictions on fundamental rights are no longer possible in times of crisis. In general, restrictions on fundamental rights should be made more difficult, e.g., only on the basis of scientific evidence or with strict time limits. Health impact assessments should be mandatory for health measures, and the precautionary principle must not be turned on its head. According to current EU law, this principle states that risky interventions or technologies—e.g., lockdowns, mass testing of healthy people, or mandatory mRNA vaccinations—should be avoided. It does not justify their use to prevent possible harm. Another option would be to establish a democratic crisis council comprising all key groups in the population and vested with a veto against restrictions on fundamental rights. In addition, some fundamental rights should be upgraded. For example, the right to physical integrity could be strengthened from a relative right to an absolute right, raising it to the same level as human dignity. This would spell the end of testing, mask, and vaccination mandates, thereby eliminating the greatest potential for social division. Other fundamental values could be expanded, such as state pre-censorship to post-censorship on social media, the Nuremberg Code to provisionally approved drugs, or the prohibition of discrimination based on health characteristics or therapies. The Geneva Convention on Refugees could be extended to include environmental refugees, and ecological human rights could be added to the UN Social Covenant. An innovative approach would be to include the protection of fundamental rights in a country’s common good product, which would replace gross domestic product as a measure of prosperity. In this way, “non-economic” issues such as the protection of fundamental rights or peacekeeping can be included in the measurement of success for society as a whole.
Mr. Felber, thank you very much for the interesting conversation.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Seriously…”
For several years now, anger has been the central emotion in many people’s lives.
[This interview posted on June 23, 2025 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.oekologiepolitik.de/2025/06/23/nun-mal-im-ernst/.]
Democracies need citizens with a stable psyche and a clear mind. But these qualities are disappearing, warns a psychology professor. Mental illness is increasing at an extraordinary rate. There are reasons for this, and they lie in various social developments.
Interview with Prof. Dr. Bernhard Hommel
EcologyPolitics: Prof. Hommel, what prompted you to write first a book about left-wing identity politics and then one about the neurotization of our society?
Prof. Dr. Bernhard Hommel: The first book was a mixture of self-defense and self-therapy. When my wife and I returned to Germany in 2020 after 20 years in the Netherlands, I realized that although I had left the country as a left-wing Green, I now seemed to be an arch-conservative semi-fascist—because the way of thinking had changed dramatically. I wanted to better understand the central driver of this development: left-wing identity politics. I share its goals, but as a scientist, its solutions make my hair stand on end. The topic of my second book is more obvious for a psychologist: the massive increase in psychological problems in our society, especially among young people. Some of these problems are internal, in the form of listlessness, depression, or anxiety. Others are external, in the form of increasingly narcissistic and aggressive behavior. In the book, I develop the thesis that these developments are expressions of the same cause: the increase in neuroticism in all of us! But if you understand how neuroses work, you can also turn them off. I make suggestions for how to do this.
According to a study you cite, the number of people in Germany who say that “anger” is their central feeling in life has doubled in recent years. And the number of AfD voters has also doubled. Are these the same people?
I explore this question with my wife in a new book project. Many justify their own anger by pointing out that their perspective is not sufficiently visible in everyday politics. And objectively speaking, that’s true. If all the inhabitants of the new federal states were female or black, left-wing politicians would immediately present statistics showing where East Germans are underrepresented: in the Bundestag, on DAX executive boards, among professors, in wealth distribution. And they would demand that this injustice be remedied in the name of human rights. Unfortunately, however, being East German has not made it onto the list of politically relevant characteristics in identity politics. And so the attitude that East Germans should just stop complaining dominates in the West. How are people who feel humiliated and disregarded supposed to attract attention and create a thorn in the side of Western-dominated federal politics? Voting for a party “beyond the firewall” seems like a plausible strategy.
You cite left-wing identity politics and its focus on feelings as a cause of the neuroticism and polarization of our society. But to what extent does left-wing identity politics influence the psyche of AfD supporters?
Emphasizing identity of any kind aims to segregate society, because the political power of one group is to be increased at the expense of other groups. This basic approach is divisive. We humans have different characteristics and interests. And depending on whether we emphasize the differences or the similarities, we create division or cohesion. Left-wing politics has long since ceased to want to include everyone. Instead, it distinguishes itself through demarcation. Right-wing politics does this too, of course – the AfD has a long tradition of separatism. But the left used to be much more inclusive.
Seriously, how is that psychologically plausible? If I impose politically motivated language regulations on the vast majority of a country that they neither accept nor understand, if I allow their underage children to undergo sex reassignment surgery without their consent, if I force female soccer fans to share toilets in stadiums with drunk men, if I settle so many refugees in villages that the population almost doubles, then I cannot expect those affected to become more open-minded, tolerant, and democratic! That should be obvious. But as long as that does not happen, the AfD will continue to gain ground in elections.
In your book, you propose a wealth of measures to stop neurotization and polarization. Which are the most important?
Two unspectacular measures seem to me to be the easiest to implement: First, we can all start immediately to link the development of our own opinions to the necessary expertise. Why should we have strong opinions about the Gaza war without specific knowledge? Or about China, Russia, or the US? Racking your brains over things you can’t actually influence doesn’t do you any good because you remain helpless. And others can’t learn anything from unqualified contributions either.
Second, we can systematically objectify our perception and processing of information. Every event has both content and an emotional impact. The content may be important, but the emotional impact usually just causes us unnecessary distress. My surgeon should keep a cool head and doesn’t need to actively empathize with my suffering! Nurses are often emotionally overwhelmed because empathy is usually a key motive for choosing their profession—but it is neither necessary nor psychologically healthy. Only psychologically strong, resilient helpers are useful helpers. I am only strong and resilient if I do not let my feelings overwhelm me in the same way as those whose suffering I want to alleviate. Separating content from emotions is an essential part of many therapies.
You have been working as a psychology professor in China since 2022. What differences have you noticed compared to our Western culture? And can we learn anything from Chinese culture?
Of course, there is a lot to learn from such an ancient culture. In any case, Chinese people are much less emotional and therefore probably much more resilient than we are. Politically, they are much more focused on themselves because they are still on the path from being a poor developing country to a world power. They judge other people and countries much less than we usually do. They don’t want to lecture others – nor do they want to be lectured themselves. This could also have something to do with their education in dialectical thinking. People learn that contradictions don’t have to be unpleasant, but can be interesting. Unfortunately, we have lost the ability to patiently tolerate contradictions between facts, information, and opinions, and perhaps even find them intellectually stimulating. But this is essential for an open society.
Professor Hommel, thank you very much for the interesting conversation.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Comments on the book “Believe little. Question everything. Think for yourself. How to see through manipulation”:
[These comments are translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?page_id=55281.]
Rainer Mausfeld
“Albrecht Müller’s great achievement is to have exposed the system of mostly invisible, often very subtle but highly effective political and media manipulation that we are subjected to every day. His latest book is therefore an important further contribution to not succumbing to these manipulations, which are becoming increasingly perfidious and sophisticated, but rather identifying them for what they are: techniques of domination. A very important compendium for anyone who still thinks for themselves.”
Sahra Wagenknecht
“In this book, he describes common methods of manipulation as well as cases of successful or attempted opinion-making and analyzes the strategies behind them.”
aktionsmail.team-sahra.de/issues/echte-klimasunder-heranziehen-statt-verbraucher-abkassieren-200825
Norbert Häring
“It is a very readable and accessible book on the theory and practice of opinion control. Anyone who has not yet dealt with this topic should supplement their consumption of the usual information channels with this book in order to be less likely to take interest-driven messages at face value simply because they are heard constantly and everywhere.”
norberthaering.de/de/27-german/news/1178-glaube-wenig
Book recommendation with excerpt: “Believe little, question everything, think for yourself. How to see through manipulation.”
May 9, 2022 | Albrecht Müller has written one of the best guides to self-defense against manipulation and propaganda. Now, two and a half years after the first edition, an expanded and revised new edition has been published. Müller was head of planning in the Federal Chancellery under Brandt and Schmidt and a member of parliament. Since 2003, he has been the editor of the “conspiracy theory” portal NachDenkSeiten, according to Wikipedia. I would call it enlightening. Here’s a nice example of the manipulation techniques Müller describes. …
norberthaering.de/buchtipps/mueller-glaube-wenig/
Oskar Lafontaine
“Albrecht Müller’s book comes at the right time; it puts its finger on the sore spot. … For anyone who wants to get an overview of how decisions are made in our country, this book is groundbreaking.”
Wolfgang Bittner
Albrecht Müller sees through it all and gives us courage
An extraordinarily important book!
The media have long since lost their significance as the fourth estate and corrective in the system of separation of powers. Albrecht Müller criticizes the prevailing manipulation of opinion, which contributes significantly to the erosion of the democratic constitutional state, with apt and sometimes shocking examples. That takes a lot of courage these days and is highly commendable. It is to be hoped that this book will reach many people beyond the “enlightened” readership. Highly recommended!
Heinrich Schuster
I received the book a few days ago and read it in one sitting. In my opinion, it should be required reading in secondary schools. I was shocked to realize that I myself had fallen victim to the information methods described without having the slightest inkling. (September 30, 2019)
Freitag online
“Müller’s new book is once again an excellent eye-opener … [it] really belongs in every hand.”
freitag.de/autoren/asansoerpress35/glaube-wenig-hinterfrage-alles-denke-selbst
Telepolis
“Müller describes cases of successful or attempted opinion-making and analyzes the strategies behind them.”
heise.de/tp/features/Die-Sozialdemokratisierung-der-Union-4542162.html
Makroskop
makroskop.eu/2019/10/keynes-is-out-konjunkturprogramme-bringen-nichts-ausser-schulden/
Weltnetz TV
“In his new book, Albrecht Müller exposes the system of mostly invisible, often very quiet, but very effective political and media manipulation that reaches us every day.”
Michael Brüggemann
Dear Mr. Müller
I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude for your book: Believe little…
Since reading this book in 2019, I have been armed against all forms of manipulation, and during the coronavirus pandemic, it immediately showed me a path I could take without falling for the manipulation that is everywhere.
With this in mind, thank you once again.
Yours, Michael Brüggemann
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The social democratization of the Union
by Albrecht Müller
[This article posted on 10/1/2019 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://archiv.telepolis.de/features/Die-Sozialdemokratisierung-der-Union-4542162.html.]
A masterpiece of misdirection
Angela Merkel is truly a master strategist when it comes to public relations. Thanks in part to the support of influential journalists, she has managed to spread highly questionable messages about herself and her policies. A prime example of this is the claim that the CDU/CSU and Merkel’s policies have been “social democratized.” (The word does not, of course, mean social democratization in the sense of Schröder’s agenda politics, but in the original sense of a socially committed movement committed to democracy.) The widespread message of the social democratization of the Union is believed by many people, probably the majority.
The strategic significance of this claim is great and has two effects: First, it extends the Union’s voter base far into the realm of former social democratic voters. Second, this slogan broadens the Union’s coalition options toward a black-green alliance. If the Union and Merkel have been social democratized, then it is no problem for the rest of the remaining left-wing Greens to enter into a coalition with the Union.
One of the most important witnesses and supporters of this claim is the prominent commentator Heribert Prantl of the Süddeutsche Zeitung. “Since 2005, the CDU has successfully socialized its economic and social policy,” he wrote on October 7, 2009. On the same day, Cora Stephan asked on Deutschlandfunk radio, with regard to the coalition negotiations between the FDP and the CDU/CSU at the time: “A shift to the right?” She answered her own question: “Oh, come on. Angela Merkel won the election, the woman who managed to transform the Christian Democratic Party of Germany into a deeply social democratic force.”
That was around ten years ago, and it has been repeated time and again. The agitation was so effective that even the right wing of the Union believes the thesis of Angela Merkel’s Union’s shift to the left and is therefore organizing resistance in right-wing conservative circles.
In June 2019, Michael Wolffsohn, former professor at the German Armed Forces University in Munich, expressed his opinion in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung. In his view, the entire country has become social democratic and the SPD’s mission has been fulfilled. He said, “Social democracy is no longer the monopoly of social democrats. It is common knowledge.”
We live in a time that is largely shaped by neoliberal ideology and actions, and the exact opposite is being promoted to the people. This is perfect propaganda and no coincidence.
It is interesting to observe that the implausible message about the social democratic character of the CDU and the entire country is being spread from various quarters: by the left-liberal Prantl, the right-wing conservative Professor Wolffsohn, and the right-wing conservative new circles within the Union. And it is repeated very often and presented in an affirmative manner. What else can we do but believe the message?
This text is an excerpt from Albrecht Müller’s new book “Glaube wenig, hinterfrage alles, denke selbst” (Believe little, question everything, think for yourself), which is being published this week by Westend Verlag. In it, Müller describes numerous common methods of manipulation as well as cases of successful or attempted opinion-making and analyzes the strategies behind them.
The thesis of Merkel’s and the Union’s social democratization can be supported by a few small progressive reforms. Angela Merkel did not approve “marriage for all” in the German Bundestag, but she declared the vote a matter of conscience and let it go ahead. That was enough to create a progressive image. Merkel’s open arms for refugees added to this.
But there can be no talk of social democratization: Angela Merkel has always supported Ursula von der Leyen’s arms plans. Throughout the conflict between West and East, she has never seriously moved away from the alliance with the US and NATO. She has unquestioningly gone along with the sanctions against Russia. Angela Merkel has done nothing to support the retirement provisions of the majority of the population. She has also supported privatization in the social sector. She has never been in favor of social democratic employment programs, instead boasting about the black zero budget. She adorns herself with export surpluses without considering what this means for European cohesion.
Angela Merkel has covered up and probably helped orchestrate the recent annoying and truly unprogressive personnel decisions: the rise of von der Leyen to President of the EU Commission, the rise of Kramp-Karrenbauer, this Cold Warrior left over from the 1950s, to chairwoman of the CDU and federal defense minister.
It is extremely difficult to oppose the slogan of social democratization because it is deeply entrenched in broad circles. And because the SPD itself is in such a desolate state, there has been no opposition from within the party. This makes it all the more important that as many citizens as possible recognize this large-scale manipulation and oppose it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Politics: Believe little, question everything, think for yourself
Albrecht Müller’s new book shows us “How to see through manipulation.” Recommended reading!
[This book review posted on 10/2/2019 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.freitag.de/autoren/asansoerpress35/glaube-wenig-hinterfrage-alles-denke-selbst.]
Andreas Zumach, a well-known journalist and UN expert with many years of experience in the peace movement, recently warned at a peace conference in Essen against the frequently used term “new complexity.” Which basically means: There’s nothing we can do anyway. Zumach called this a term of powerlessness. Because ultimately, if you look closely, everything can be clearly named, understood, and problems can be tackled with carefully developed solutions.
In my opinion, this also includes the manipulation carried out daily by politicians and the media, often in tandem.
We live in a kind of democracy, I would like to write here, somewhat flippantly. But instead of nurturing and caring for it like a delicate little plant, or to put it in the words of Willy Brandt, daring to take it a little further, it is being hollowed out a little more every day.
We citizens are led by the nose every now and then. Other times, we are led up the garden path multiple times. Often, we don’t even notice. After all, not everyone has the time to investigate every questionable issue in detail and do research on the internet or in libraries.
Karl Marx wrote the following motto on his daughters’ questionnaires about scientific findings: “De omnibus dubitandum” – “Everything must be doubted.” When new findings emerge, the old state of knowledge becomes outdated or relativized. That is how it is in science.
In principle, however, it is also right to maintain a healthy skepticism about everything.
For quite some time now, the economy, politics, and the media have been trying to wean us off critical thinking. Albrecht Müller, a colleague and mentor of Willy Brandt, analyzed this phenomenon and published the book “Meinungsmache” (Opinion Making).
Propaganda is quite en vogue today. Most political decisions are made under the influence of massive propaganda—veritable propaganda machines are constructed and set in motion, according to Albrecht Müller. Quite a few media outlets play along cheerfully instead of fulfilling their role as the fourth estate. As Albrecht Müller demonstrates, this ranges from Agenda 2010 to new wars.
One propaganda machine is the so-called Initiative Neue Soziale Marktwirtschaft (INSM), founded in 2000 by the employers’ association Gesamtmetall. Albrecht Müller founded the NachDenkSeiten website to counteract their massive propaganda with information.
Since then, the NachDenkSeiten (NDS), with its editor at the helm, has tirelessly drawn attention to methods of manipulation and analyzed the strategies behind them. The NDS also makes its readers smarter about economic issues where “quality media” (with a few exceptions) and public broadcasters muddy the waters or report in a simplified manner: they are nothing more than “gap-filling press” (Ulrich Teusch).
Readers are in good hands with the NDS. I’ll admit it: they’re the first thing I read after breakfast. I’ve been publicly defamed for this. Oh well. Of course, the NDS is not infallible—they don’t claim to be—and they do make mistakes sometimes. But in my opinion, they are indispensable.
Albrecht Müller – recently discredited on the front page of the Süddeutsche Zeitung and, in a sense, discriminated against on the grounds of his age – has now published a new book. As he explains, his aim is to reach even those people who do not read the NDS. The book, published by Westend Verlag, is entitled “Believe little, question everything, think for yourself. How to see through manipulation.”
In this book, Albrecht Müller continues to educate and encourage people not to accept everything without resistance:
“We must doubt and contradict. This becomes easier when we connect with others. When we create our own milieu of a lively counter-public sphere, when we exchange ideas, when we communicate. If you have friends, family members, or colleagues who are also interested in freeing their minds from the influence of third parties, it makes sense to exchange ideas regularly. You discover more, you understand more, and you can more easily make sense of dubious events. And talking about constant manipulation is often enjoyable. In any case, it’s interesting.”
In the introduction to the book (p. 7), Müller alludes to the song “Die Gedanken sind frei” (Thoughts Are Free), where the second line reads: “Who can guess them?” and “No one can know them.” The author then immediately points out that “other people and institutions and the secret services can certainly guess and investigate what we think. And worse still, attempts are made to influence what we think.”
Müller comes to this conclusion: “Our thoughts are not free, they can be manipulated.”
But Albrecht Müller does not give up: “Thoughts are free. However, we must do something to remain masters of our thoughts. That is why this book was written. It is worth thinking about what could help us to continue to think for ourselves despite all the challenges and not become dependent.”
However, Müller also points out (pp. 29/30): “We are surrounded by campaigns and must realize that total manipulation is possible. We can reassure ourselves that something like this was necessary in Germany during the Nazi era and that this dark period was overcome. Perhaps we can do it again.”
Albrecht Müller’s words are not exaggerated or too harsh. In many respects, it is already twelve o’clock, or even past twelve. Nevertheless, hope dies last…
Chapter III, Methods of Manipulation, is interesting. It deals with (pp. 21/22) language regulations, manipulation using constantly used and evaluated terms, and abbreviated stories (such as when there is talk of the “annexation” of Crimea and it is “forgotten” to mention that Putin was responding to the previous Maidan coup). Concealment is also a method of manipulation, as is “repetition – constant dripping wears away the stone.” Albrecht Müller lists seventeen points and analyzes them, thoroughly substantiating his explanations with examples that we are all familiar with.
And we remember: during the Schröder era, reforms (a term that used to be associated with improvements) became “reforms,” which today tend to mean or result in deterioration.
The statutory pension has been poorly written and poorly communicated. To this end, the demographic factor was used, not to say threatened. This was done solely so that the additional pillar of private provision could be recommended to us and the insurance companies could cash in. Everything had to be financed from our income, which had not increased. The pension contribution should have been raised slightly. We should remain vigilant! As the saying goes, nothing happens without a reason.
Dear readers, you can understand and comprehend all of this by reading Albrecht Müller’s writings and comparing them with the political and media reality.
Müller’s new book is once again an excellent eye-opener.
“With knowledge comes doubt,” Albrecht Müller begins the final chapter of his book (from p. 133), “- this quote from Goethe probably also reflects the mood of many readers when they have read about the methods of manipulation and relevant cases of opinion-making and the strategies behind them.”
He continues: “We are assailed by doubts about the rationality of many decisions. We are assailed by doubts that what we call democracy works even to a limited extent. We are assailed by doubts about people who want to control our thinking and thereby serve their own interests. We doubt the rationality of doubt itself. Many people now do this and conform. They would rather belong than question critically. This is understandable given the violence of manipulation and misdirection and the palpable powerlessness.“
This brings us back to the ”concept of powerlessness” mentioned at the beginning of my article by Andreas Zumach: There is nothing we can do anyway.
But this is wrong and the wrong approach. Albrecht Müller also points this out: “But we cannot allow ourselves to retreat into our private lives and into the milieu of the discouraged. This becomes urgent,” Müller reminds us, “when we think about the vital question of war and peace.”
We should underline the following sentence penned by Müller: “In our own interest of survival, we cannot accept the creation of a new enemy image in Europe without protest.”
Müller: “We must doubt and contradict.” (p. 134)
This is exactly what the book calls for. Not to bury our heads in the sand in some social niche.
Albrecht Müller’s new book really belongs in every hand. So, dear readers, please pass it on once you have read it.
I admit that much of what is in this little book is nothing new to daily readers of NachDenkSeiten. But you have the advantage of being able to simply look things up, as it covers the most important points.
Albrecht Müller wrote the book primarily for people who are not avid readers of NachDenkSeiten.
The book
Albrecht Müller
Believe little, question everything, think for yourself
How to see through manipulation