The superfluity of the state
A state that no longer provides for the common good delegitimizes itself.
Is a state necessary? Most people would answer “yes” to this question, if only because certain community tasks would otherwise be difficult to organize. But is this state necessary, which harasses people and makes them poorer, while at the same time neglecting the tasks that citizens could rightly demand it fulfill? Friedrich Merz once said that he did not want to govern with “these Greens,” suggesting that he could do so with other Greens. Well, many people are rightly distancing themselves from this state; perhaps they would be satisfied with another. Whenever an institution loses legitimacy and popular support, it tries to delegitimize its critics. If someone says to powerful people, “You’re doing a bad job,” they are more likely to send the police to the complainer’s house than simply do a better job themselves. In this respect, the growing rhetorical harshness of politicians toward citizens who do not toe the party line is also a sign of a progressive process of decline. The pillars of society are delegitimizing themselves, but projecting the blame onto others who are merely holding up a mirror to them.
[This article posted on 1/17/2025 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.manova.news/artikel/staatliche-uberflussigkeit.]
Politicians such as Nancy Faeser, Robert Habeck, Lisa Paus and their ilk probably already consider the title of this article to be delegitimisation. However, this is nothing unusual for anti-democrats. They probably label anything that casts doubt on their self-importance and arbitrariness as delegitimisation.
The term “legitimacy” refers to the justification and reasoning behind existing orders, conditions, processes, and rules. Politicians use this to justify their actions on behalf of the state.
The term “delegitimization” describes processes that cast suspicion on the legitimacy of something and cast doubt on alleged facts. In the process of delegitimization, the legality of regulations and processes is questioned and possibly abolished, i.e., no longer considered lawful.
Delegitimization of the state in the Corona pandemic
The lateral thinking movement during the Corona pandemic represented a justified process of delegitimization of the state. The demonstrators, who were defamed, labeled, and discredited as Covid idiots, conspiracy theorists, tin foil hat wearers, and so on, rightly questioned the legitimacy of state actions. The legitimacy of the coronavirus measures was no longer given. The disclosure of the RKI protocols shows beyond any doubt that the decision-makers took actions that violated fundamental rights against their better judgment. They were no longer acting legitimately.
A state that no longer cares for the common good delegitimizes itself. The mere fact that politicians and their media prostitutes placed citizens from all social classes and with different ideologies and religions in the “right-wing” corner justified the delegitimization of this state, which definitely no longer had the welfare of the people in mind.
The state’s dissemination of information via its propaganda organs — aka the mainstream media — based on the findings of its experts was not only one-sided, but in some cases also fake. Other opinions and findings were defamed as lies and their proponents labeled as enemies of the people.
During the coronavirus fraud, the unfree media and politicians presented only scientific “experts” who had proven their loyalty to the pharmaceutical industry through third-party funded research.
Freedom of science in Germany was more or less buried in 2002 with the introduction of the so-called W-salary system — a division into a relatively low basic salary and performance-related allowances. The performance allowances have mostly degenerated into bonuses for compliant behavior that conforms to the government narrative. This anti-science behavior in turn promotes third-party funded research, in which companies finance university research projects. What conclusions are scientists likely to reach if they are funded by the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, for example?
These scientific prostitutes will not bite the hand that feeds them and will deliver the desired results. Scientists who do not represent the prevailing, funded opinion receive no third-party funding and no allowances. Scientists with the ability to think for themselves in all directions have been defamed. The official media, also instructed by the elite, now publish only one opinion. A bought science cannot fulfill its constitutional mandate, any more than bought media can—see, for example, the Gates Foundation and Spiegel or George Soros and the media. Those who no longer fulfill their constitutional duties work against democracy and thus against its citizens.
When the state or its protagonists, as well as its media and scientific prostitutes, screw up, citizens have the right—in my view, the duty—to delegitimize the state. This right is enshrined in Article 20, Paragraph 4 of the Basic Law, which is supposed to protect citizens from an overreaching state.
The correct and lawful opposition of clear thinkers to an intrusive state, known as the “Querdenker movement,” rejected all measures taken by decision-makers for the purpose of allegedly containing the pandemic. This freedom movement demanded the imprisonment of various politicians and the immediate end of all coronavirus measures—and rightly so, as it turned out. My trust in politics and its institutions, in the media, in scientists, in doctors, and also in society, which for the most part declared its solidarity with the coronavirus fraud due to misinformation or lack of information, has been limited for the past four years.
During this time, politicians blatantly violated the Basic Law, which was undermined by an unlawful modification of the Infection Protection Act. The coronavirus measures resulted in deprivation of liberty and enormous damage to people’s health.
The state acted illegitimately. The politicians who committed these injustices continue to resist a serious investigation into what happened.
Delegitimization of the state relevant to the protection of the constitution
The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) summarizes the actions of groups such as the “Querdenker movement” under the term “delegitimization of the state relevant to the protection of the constitution.” The Office for the Protection of the Constitution uses this term primarily to describe efforts that cannot be clearly attributed to either left-wing or right-wing extremism. The term “relevant to the protection of the constitution” is to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of the “Querdenker,” the authorities were not sure whether this movement constituted permissible criticism or already delegitimization of the state.
The following can be read on the website of the German Bundestag:
“(…) Since 2021, the BfV has had a newly established phenomenon area called ‘delegitimization of the state relevant to the protection of the constitution,’ which records efforts “that are likely to shake the population’s confidence in the free democratic basic order by systematically denigrating and disparaging the state and its institutions or representatives based on that order…”
That would all be well and good if the free democratic basic order had existed at that time.
It was certainly not democratic to force people to wear masks without any necessity, to stay at home after 9 p.m., to keep children out of school, or to ram swabs up their noses to the point of tears. It was certainly not democratic to persecute the unvaccinated minority in a way that Germany has only seen in the darkest times of its history.
The Querdenker movement was primarily a protest from the center of society, but it was also exploited by forces on the left and right to pursue their own goals. During the coronavirus pandemic, governments should have asked themselves why there was widespread suspicion of the coronavirus measures among all sections of the population. However, in their intoxication with power and obsession with control, they failed to do so — quite the contrary! The protagonists of the party cartel outdid each other in their bans and tightening of measures, most of which were waved through by the Constitutional Court, the Ethics Council chaired by Alena Buyx, and the Standing Vaccination Commission (STIKO).
In view of these irrefutable facts, it is difficult to trust the state and its institutions or representatives, who are unwilling to engage in any serious reappraisal. And here the question must be asked: who is actually delegitimizing the state, or am I wrong?
The German Bundestag website also states:
“In February 2024, the Federal Minister of the Interior, together with the presidents of the Federal Criminal Police Office and the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), presented planned measures against right-wing extremism. In this context, it was stated, among other things:
‘Those who mock the state must deal with a strong state.
Ms. Faeser, that sentence can also be phrased differently:
“Those who mock the common good must deal with strong citizens.”
People like Nancy Faeser, who are particularly fond of using the term “democracy,” have almost turned the meaning of this word on its head.
Democracy means “rule by the people,” Ms. Faeser, not “rule against the people.”
You politicians should be “representatives of the people” and not “representatives of the elite” in “our democracy,” which may be yours, but has long since ceased to be that of the people.
My colleague Georg Ohrweh has also spoken out again on the subject of “our democracy.” Here are his words:
“Our democratic Federal Republic of Germany is currently as democratic as the German Democratic Republic was.”
Dear Claudia Roth,
The author has no intention whatsoever to disparage you.
On the contrary, it is the benevolent recommendation of an elderly man—if you will forgive me for mentioning my gender—who would urge you to abandon the path you are on immediately. Once you have been infected with an ideology, your entire way of thinking becomes poisoned by it. The more advanced the poisoning, the more you consider your way of thinking to be normal.
You get used to it. It’s comparable to a slow, creeping arsenic poisoning that inevitably leads to death, in your case to political death.
Symptoms of poisoning:
In one of your recent statements, you claim: “The Federal President represents our country. Anyone who denigrates the Federal President denigrates Germany.”
Not only does this have the “charm” of lèse-majesté, which you may associate with your statement, but it is much worse than that: it is Nazi speak!
All you have to do is replace the word “Federal President” with “Führer” and it fits perfectly.
Because now some people see the Nazis, the National Socialists, not as the extreme right, but as the extreme left! And since the terms “right-wing,” “right-wing extremist,” or “confirmed right-wing extremist” are now used for anything that contradicts the ideology of the Greens, and since the Greens naturally distance themselves as much as possible from anything that leans to the right, the only political classification left is the left. How far and how extreme and how certain this is lies in the eye of the beholder.
And Mr. Steinmeier currently represents anything but Germany, the state, or even the people—what was that again?—but exclusively the political caste to which he himself belongs, or rather the interests of the transatlanticists.
If Mr. Steinmeier is unable to deal with criticism and even possible denigration, whether justified or unjustified, then he does not belong in politics, let alone at the head of a state, but rather in a greenhouse, for example, where he can lovingly tend to his mimosa plants.
Given the abundance of other politicians of this sensitive variety, some of whom are allergic to shampoo, the greenhouse would quickly become quite full. Instead, denunciation portals — digital Stasi authorities outside the realm of politics proper — are being set up to avert harm not to the German people, but to the political caste. The author fails to see what this has to do with democracy.
To say this is not a slur, but the perception of the democratically minded sovereign—who was that again?—yes, the citizens, many of whom have expressed their trust in the political caste through elections, which the caste has unfortunately abused in many ways.
This expression of opinion is absolutely permissible in a functioning democracy, in a democracy in which there is an exchange between politicians and the people.
In a system of “our democracy,” a self-contained fraternization arises which, just like in public broadcasting, exploits every opportunity to make itself unassailable and remain among itself. This leaves all doors and gates wide open to the abuse of power. As we are currently seeing, this also includes massive restrictions on freedom of expression. In politics through the Digital Services Act, in public broadcasting through the deliberate omission of information or the dissemination of half-truths, but always in line with the state. And journalists are willing accomplices, instead of critically questioning political decisions, which is actually their job. You could also call it spineless journalism.
Politicians do not have to explain their “our democracy” to us, the people, because we are not intelligent enough to understand it. Rather, we, the mature citizens, must make it clear to politicians that we do not want their “our democracy” because we would be very happy with a normal, functioning democracy that includes freedom of expression, as we once had.
In pushing through “our democracy,” there is a great cross-party danger that the implementation of ideologies will give rise to a fanaticism that in many ways is capable of coming as close as possible to the darkest period of German history.
Just make good policies for the people! Then we, the people, will have nothing to complain about.
The fact that the members of the No Weapons in War Zones party in particular obviously have only a preschool knowledge of German history is currently evident in the digital chancellor advertising that was projected onto the Victory Gate in Munich without prior approval.
Of all places, on a public site abused by the Nazis. This expresses a certain megalomania that has already ruined Germany once before. And apart from all that: Who even came up with the idea of defacing a public building with digital election advertising? Thank God this graffiti was quickly put to an end by a ban.
One question remains: Who is actually delegitimizing the state here?
Hence my urgent appeal to all those who have lost their way: Turn back immediately! Pause and realize that you are on the wrong track and are dragging an entire country into the abyss! We, the people, do not want this, and many of us no longer recognize your policies as legitimate and in accordance with the constitution. Georg Ohrweh
As always, well said, lion!
Georg Ohrweh and I are not the only ones who have difficulty with Faeser’s interpretation of the slogan “delegitimization of the state.”
In the BSW newsletter of December 24, 2024, Sahra Wagenknecht wrote, among other things:
“Why couldn’t the attack in Magdeburg be prevented?
The terrible attack on the Christmas market with its many victims is overshadowing much else at the moment. Our thoughts are with the victims and their families. It is incomprehensible and infuriating that a perpetrator in Germany has once again managed to injure and kill so many innocent people, even though he was known to the authorities through his public threats. This failure of the state must also be investigated. Instead of persecuting citizens for expressing critical opinions and setting the Office for the Protection of the Constitution on a supposed “delegitimization of the state,” the resources of our security authorities must be used to combat terrorism.”
These lines will not have pleased Ms. Faeser, who was clearly indirectly addressed here. In my view, Nancy Faeser has totally failed as Federal Minister of the Interior. This lady is not only afraid of the citizens whose freedom of expression she wants to restrict, but also afraid of being undermined from within her own ranks. The fear of tyrants of their own palace guards is growing.
The interior minister wants to “use all instruments of the constitutional state” to protect democracy. Coming from Ms. Faeser, these words sound like mockery to my ears. Since November 17, 2023, the federal government’s website has stated, among other things:
“Those who reject the state cannot serve it.”
The federal government wants to pass a new law to remove enemies of the constitution from public service more quickly. For Federal Interior Minister Faeser, this is clear: “Every case of extremism must have clear consequences.”
No place for enemies of the constitution
On the initiative of the federal government, the Bundestag has passed a law to speed up disciplinary proceedings in the federal administration and to amend other provisions of civil service law.
“With this law, a mandate from the coalition agreement is now being implemented,” said the federal interior minister. “The aim is to ensure the integrity of the civil service.”
In my opinion, such a law is intended to put pressure on and, if necessary, persecute critical thinkers who do not fully agree with the system. Opponents of the protagonists of the now ailing political system are to be silenced. This law demands unconditional obedience to the broken regime that has turned to totalitarianism. Judges, for example, will increasingly fail to administer “justice” under such a law—as we have already seen in the coronavirus dictatorship—and will instead prefer to conform to the expectations of the system and its political actors. “Responsible ethicists” who follow their conscience are to be replaced by zombie-like “ethicists of conviction” who follow an authority controlled by others.
It now seems appropriate to protect the constitution from the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, which is subordinate to the Federal Minister of the Interior and is supposed to take action against people who are merely exercising their right to freedom of expression but who, in the view of the Federal Ministry of the Interior, are allegedly delegitimizing the state.
Under the anti-democratic construct of the “Constitutional Protection Agency being bound by instructions,” it is not possible for the Constitutional Protection Agency to take action against the anti-democratic machinations of Nancy Faeser, for example. The de facto dependence of the public prosecutor’s office on the Ministry of Justice is also quite questionable in a supposed democracy. The separation of powers is hardly practicable in such constellations and, if this anti-democratic ideology continues, will end in a GDR 2.0.
“Those who reject the state cannot serve it,” proclaimed the still incumbent interior minister on the federal government’s website. I agree. That is why you, Ms. Faeser, should resign from your post as soon as possible. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones! An interior minister who apparently arbitrarily ordered the transfer of the then president of the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI), Arne Schönbohm, in October 2022 and misused the Office for the Protection of the Constitution to pursue her own goals should be removed from office. It is not civil servants in “our democracy” who express their opinions who delegitimize the state, but you, Ms. Faeser, who is undermining “our democracy”!
For the Federal Minister of the Interior, anyone who does not toe the line of “Her Majesty” is an extremist, whether it is a citizen who wants to exercise their right to freedom of expression or a civil servant who, for example, recognized the madness of the coronavirus measures and no longer wanted to play along. If you say A, you don’t automatically have to say B; you may also have realized that A was wrong. Such aphorisms do not, of course, fit into the totalitarian mindset of someone like Nancy Faeser, for whom pluralism of opinion and freedom of expression, in which there are no “wrong” views, are foreign concepts. You and your ilk are not victims, Ms. Faeser, but perpetrators.
Thin-skinned politicians
Various political wimps want to make dissatisfied citizens who express their opinions bleed for “lèse-majesté.” The front-runner is Robert Habeck, who mutated from children’s book author to economics minister. Second place goes to former trampoline jumper and still-incumbent Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock. It is striking that the most incompetent ministers occupy the top two positions in this competition. The correlation between the degree of incompetence and the number of complaints seems undeniable. Below are statistics on the number of criminal complaints filed by federal ministers in Germany in the period from September 26, 2021—after the federal elections—to August 2024:
Image source
Will Mr. Habeck reach the milestone of 1,000 complaints by the end of his term as minister? Anyone who mocks the state or its incompetent protagonists must expect to be reported to the authorities. Freedom of expression is only enjoyed by those who toe the party line; everyone else must keep their mouths shut.
If these leaders had taken their oath of office seriously and prevented harm to the people instead of damaging them with their brainless economic and energy policies and their policy on Ukraine, there would be fewer disparaging remarks, wouldn’t there? And these words are in no way intended to delegitimize the state, but are merely a statement of fact.
Now imagine Robert Habeck becoming chancellor. Okay, this worst-case scenario will not come to pass, but still: if this wimp were also the leader of Germany and Habeck were to finally push Germany into the abyss, lawyers and prosecutors would have their work cut out for them. There would probably be a flood of complaints.
Conclusion
For today’s bottom line, I would like to quote the editor of the highly readable monthly publication Ennericher Allgemeine (EnnAll), Eo Scheinder:
“However, since this policy is presented and dictated by the political-media complex as imperative and, so to speak, as the ultimate wisdom, any well-founded criticism of it and any public resistance to it has long been regarded as subversive agitation, or, as it is now euphemistically called, as delegitimization of the state that is relevant to the protection of the constitution (left-wing) state, which is why the growing genuine opposition that has formed from within the people, beyond the eroding system parties, is constantly accused of right-wing agitation and division and is therefore marginalized as an undemocratic troublemaker.”
Ditto!
You can find out more about this remarkable, unconventional editor and journalist here.
Uwe Froschauer studied business administration at Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich. He was particularly interested in business psychology. He has worked as a management consultant, gives seminars at vocational training institutions, is the author of several books, and runs the blog wassersaege.com. His passion for world travel has made him sensitive to other cultures and the problems faced by other peoples. He is close to nature and loves animals and plants.