Difficult truth – cheap lies

In times of the Internet, historical memory shrinks. Who remembers today that for almost half a century the United States of America represented the realm of enlightenment, truth and progress, while the other side of the Iron Curtain was ruled by arbitrariness, gulags and politically decreed lies? This contrast was inflated by mutual propaganda, certainly, but forced labor camps and those millions of people Stalin had sent to their deaths were bitter reality. There was so little doubt concerning this gruesome past that Solzhenitsyn’s accusations were read worldwide, that is even in Russia. When Gorbachev finally dared to say the truth, the collapse of the regime was inevitable.

Truth in politics works like salvation.

In Nazi Germany, prescribed political lies had been on the agenda from the very beginning of the regime. After Hitler’s seizure of power, his oldest ally Ernst Röhm and the SA militias he controlled had suddenly become inconvenient (a thorn in the side of the Reichswehr and conservative circles, whose support Hitler could not do without). The Nazis therefore invented the fake news of a planned coup. Röhm and about two hundred other citizens were murdered in a cloak-and-dagger operation. This was a foretaste of the nihilism of power that would darken Germany for more than a decade. Hitler and his henchmen assumed that lie and truth had no meaning in politics (or anywhere else for that matter). What counts, according to their credo, is power and nothing but power, for whose sake no human sacrifice would be too great.

The Liberation of Germans

from the bloody rule of Adolf Hitler was perceived as a redemption not because the Nazis had been militarily defeated. In most cases, peoples still prefer to be ruled by local villains rather than by foreign saviors – after all, the latter show them their own failure and humiliation. The sigh of relief was due to the fact that now it was possible again to recognize reality for what it is and speak the truth. Truth and lies are not mere products of power, as diehard nihilists claim. During the last years of Nazi rule, citizen were aware that the constant reports of victory were nothing but cynical lies. Moreover, many Germans had resisted decreed racial hatred at least in such a way that they opposed the ordered lie with private exceptions – the Jews known to them personally were quite different from all others! When holding to this miserable remnant of truth, Germans did not endanger their life which they would have done when resorting to open protest.

The willingness of Germans to welcome the American liberators with open arms at the end of the war was based on the fact that lie and truth were not mere creations of power. American democracy, and soon the German one too granted every citizen the right to decide for himself what he considered true or false in daily life and in politics. This was experienced as an escape from the prison of state-imposed lies.

Between 1945 until the fall of the Iron Curtain

these feelings remained largely unchallenged. It was the scientists, the thinkers, yes, and also the politicians of the West who enjoyed most credibility. As it turned out, they were trusted even in the East. After all, the walls, barbed wires and watchtowers between East and West were not built on the Western side to keep the people of Western democracies from fleeing into Stalin’s empire. They had to be built on the eastern side because so many people were pushing from there to the West. And when the Wall finally fell at the end of the 1980s, it was the heartland of the West, America, that took the whole world by storm. Jazz, jeans, the movies of Hollywood, the internet and last but not least American science and the English language started a triumphal march all over Europe and Asia.

But, as so often happens, the climax was to be

the beginning of decline. Actually, clear-sighted observers were able to see much earlier that it was stupid to maintain that darkness reigned on one side only, and light on the other. Both great powers had no qualms about wearing down or completely exhausting in constant proxy wars the countries on the fringes of their respective spheres of power. Peace in Europe was paid for with enormous suffering in Vietnam, Chile and many African states. Great powers establish order in their spheres of rule – just as each individual state does within its own borders. The Roman Empire had already proceeded in such a way. It had successfully pacified most of the ancient world, so that people could travel safely from Britain to the borders of the Persian Empire. At the same time, the peripheral areas subjugated by the center were notoriously exploited and generally treated with unabashed brutality. The privilege of Enlightenment, peace, and a freedom that included the right to describe conditions truthfully applied to the centers of power, not to the disputed peripheries.

The year 1945 marked the greatest historical break

in the history of Europe. After more than two thousand years of domination, the Old Continent had deliberately catapulted itself out of the world’s center with a civil war lasting for almost 30 years. In its place, the US and the Soviet Union had now become the leading powers. This is how things remained up to now (except that China could outstrip both great powers in the coming decade).

In other words, Europe has become so marginalized and militarily insignificant that it can no longer withstand any encroachment without outside help. In 1989 it could still appear as if Russia too had to bid farewell to its former role as a superpower. From a superficial point of view, the United States had ended the Cold War victoriously by an arms race the enemy was unable to withstand. But there were deeper reasons for the incredibly rapid disintegration of the Soviet camp. The people in the GDR (1953), in Hungary (1956), in the Czech Republic (1968) and finally in Poland (1981) had already shown that they no longer believed the promises of the communist regime. According to Soviet ideology, communism had brought paradise on earth; but Eastern people soon realized that Western nations were much better off than they were. Such evident truths could however not be openly stated – they were taboo. On the other side of the Iron Curtain, people were forced to live with state-imposed lies and had to fear being banished to Siberia for speaking the truth. Gorbachev had only given the external impetus for the dissolution of the regime. In reality, the regime had already been broken down by its own lies – hence its incredibly rapid disintegration.

The meeting of Sergejewitsch Gorbatschow, the great Russian,

(today outlawed as a traitor in his homeland) with the American president Ronald Reagan was one of the great moments in recent world history. Two former enemies communicated in the same language of truth, proving to the world that there is an objective reality that unites people. Both men were aware of the gruesome madness that East and West were threatening each other with weapons of final destruction that at any time could trigger the end of humanity. Both wanted to establish a new peaceful order – and the whole world believed that this was possible indeed. The moment appeared like a release from the nightmare of potential self-annihilation.

Why does all this already seem so remote from present reality?

Why was Gorbachev, who had initially brought so much hope to his own country and to the world, later regarded rather like a traitor? Why did Russia under Putin once again become a great power armed to the teeth and a declared opponent of the West, though now without the communist creed? And yes, while we are asking these unpalatable questions, why not add an even more unpleasant one? Why is politics in the United States under Donald Trump dominated by lies just as much as in Russia under Vladimir Putin?

Apparently, after the fall of the Berlin Wall

and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, something went very wrong. Under Hitler, the Germans had brought forth a regime at least as totalitarian, bloody and cruel as Stalin’s rule. But the Americans were quick to help defeated Germany back on its feet with the Marshall Plan. We should never forget: Seldom was a defeated people treated so generously.

But what happened to Russia after the fall of the Berlin Wall? Not only was Russia lying prostrate on the ground, it was deliberately pushed to the ground. The West pursued an economic policy that Russia paid for with greater economic losses and misery than those caused by the Second World War. At that time, industrial production in the Soviet Union fell by “only” 24 percent, whereas in the ten years after the fall of the Iron Curtain it fell by almost 60 percent. The nineties under Boris Yeltsin were experienced by the Russians as a period of extreme humiliation. Instead of receiving thanks for having voluntarily shaken off a dictatorship and being willing to recognize the West as a model, they were completely beaten to the ground: entire branches of industry being dismantled, their scientists poached and (with the active cooperation of Jeffrey Sachs) privatization pushed through overnight so that the country’s most important resources were sold off to a few oligarchs. At that time it was an open secret that Russia’s oil wells should be open for sale in the West so that the Russian bear could be finally brought under control.

The comet-like rise of Vladimir Putin

is unthinkable without the thoughtless humiliation of Russia by the United States. That unique wisdom in dealing with defeated Germany, which had distinguished U.S. policy after ’45, was no longer an option in the case of defeated Russia after 1989. Today we have to admit that the increasingly hostile and extraordinarily successful Russian President Vladimir Putin is a creature of misguided Western policy.

The effects of such policy are becoming increasingly evident

While political lies were undoubtedly much more deeply rooted in the East until the fall of the Wall, from then on they began to spread more and more in both camps. It had always been easy for unscrupulous power to substitute lies for truth. Even science had to submit to political arbitrariness. Anyone who openly polemicized against the Nazis’ racial theory could end up in a concentration camp; anyone who questioned Lyssenkoism under Stalin had to reckon with spending the rest of his life in a Siberian gulag.

And what about truth in our time, for example in the United States? Until the 1990s, the denial of Darwin’s theory of descendance remained limited to a small number of crackpots, such as exist at any time in any country. But since about three decades, ideologically blinded crackpots have turned into the broad movement of anti-scientific Evangelicals, without whose votes Donald Trump would not have become president. Even a despiser of the truth like the current American president does not dare to declare the Darwinian theory of descendance a fake, but otherwise he confidently disregards scientific findings (on Corona, for example). And so does Vladimir Putin when he wipes off the table as “unproven” the unanimous finding of German experts that Alexei Navalny is the victim of a political assassination attempt with the nerve poison Novichok. In Russia this denial of truth is nothing new. Regularly occurring political killings were never admitted – see Sergei Yushchenkov (shot in 2003), Yuri Shchekochichin (presumably poisoned in 2003), Paul Klebnikov (shot in 2004), Anna Politikovskaya (shot in 2006), Alexander Litvinenko (poisoned with radioactive polonium in 2006), Stanislav Markelov (shot in 2009), Natalya Estemirova (shot in 2009), Boris Nemtsov (shot in 2015), Vladimir Kara-Mursa (presumably poisoned in 2017), Sergei and Yulia Skripal (poisoned with Novichok in 2018), Pyotr Werzilov (poisoned in 2018), and finally Alexei Navalny (poisoned with Novichok in 2020).

Of course, political murders are not a Russian specialty. Both superpowers never had any qualms about having them carried out in disputed peripheral regions. The CIA looks back on a long list of sins down to the violent overthrow of democratically elected President Allende in Chile, whose only mistake had been his intention to achieve a greater degree of social justice for his own people. However, in contrast to today’s Russia under Putin, the United States had maintained elementary democratic rules within its own territory – and this privilege applied just as much to its closest allies like Germany. Unfortunately, many indications give rise to the fear that President Trump – an admirer of dictators like Kim Jung-un and autocrats like Vladimir Putin – would like to override democratic rules even within his country. What we are seeing today gives no cause for optimism: Under Putin and Trump the two nuclear superpowers Russia and the USA have become alarmingly similar to each other.

A weak Europe

is doomed to become a plaything of the superpowers. Peripheral areas are being victimized without mercy. No moral superiority – whether real or imagined – may help them, indeed it has never benefited the weak. That was the case in the time of Rome, and it has remained so until today. Europe must be strong – it must become strong if it wants to escape this fate. Angela Merkel saw this clearly when she spoke of the need for Europe to strengthen its own defense capability.

Is Democracy still alive?

We are used to measuring this form of government above all by the degree of freedom that a government grants its citizens. Viewed from this perspective, the picture is as bright as it is gloomy. No one prevents me from expressing even the most absurd opinions. I may even call publicly for the overthrow of the government, provided that this is done without insulting specific individuals and without denouncing the democratic constitution as such. We should not regard this as a matter of course. In Putin’s Russia, we see opposition members disappearing under unresolved circumstances; in China, they are simply eliminated under resolved circumstances. Countries such as Germany or Austria not only allow an almost unlimited freedom of speech but to a certain degree even of action. I am not forbidden to organize my life according to personal preferences living as a single person, in a homosexual relationship or as a protester with long hair or full body tattoo or even as an accepted dropout somewhere in the province. In the leading democracy of the West, in the US, I am even allowed to publish books in which I offer detailed descriptions of how to best crack the safes of rich people. Yes, and nobody prevents me from selling the tools that are best suited for this purpose. I am only forbidden to realize such recipes or to put those tools to a practical test.

This distinction is generally valid in the US. No law forbids me to openly confess my liking for human butchers like Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot as long as I do not take concrete steps to translate their ideas into practice. Even a cursory glance at history teaches us that individual freedom, as it seems self-evident in the US or in contemporary Western democracies, never existed to such an extent.

Seen from this perspective, we have good reason to be grateful

for not being citizens of Putin’s Russia or Xi Jinping’s China. Many people who do not want to keep their own opinions in check would have to spend their lives in a prison cell – unless, that is to say, they are threatened with something even worse. These are facts that are hard to argue about. And yet, we have to say that such gratitude is not very widespread and rather meets with sneering smiles. We may be astonished by such reactions but they are not so difficult to understand. Let us for this purpose take a second look at Russia or rather at the international broadcaster RT (Russia today). It is striking how many outstanding Western intellectuals regularly appear at this platform – by no means only those who are sympathetic to the policy of the new Russian Tsar. They take this as a welcome opportunity to familiarize a wider audience with their thoughts, because they have little chance of being invited by the media in their own country.

It is true that in western democracies

everything may be said. Nobody wants serious thinkers to shut up, even annoying oppositionists, unscrupulous quacks, radical do-gooders or incorrigible reactionaries are allowed to speak out unhindered. The question is whether what they say will be heard.

Here the odds are definitely against them. Media concentration in a few hands has so much progressed in Western states – above all in the US – that opinions are now sifted and controlled by a handful of press moguls. This means that only those they admit as politically correct have any chance of being published and known by a broad public. Of course, social media such as Facebook etc. still open an almost limitless field to the freedom of expression, but at the cost of being unnoticed and unheeded. Utmost freedom is indeed perfectly compatible with an undemocratic control of media-effective opinion. The end of this development could very well be a de facto opinion dictatorship.

The fact that high-ranking US intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky are barred from public appearance in the media of their own country so that in order to be heard they accept invitations by RT, suggests that we are already heading in this direction.

Western societies suffer from a paradox

On the one hand, their people are doing better than ever before. Material living standards have never been as high as in modern welfare states. In earlier societies people regularly starved to death – as we know, in some parts of the world, this is the case even today. That is not to say that we do not witness premature deaths in Western societies, but instead of being caused by want as in earlier times they are the result of excess: obesity and other luxury diseases of present-day civilization.

On the other hand, we do experience a process of creeping disempowerment of the democratic sovereign. Many people are painfully aware that their vote counts for less or even nothing; the trend towards abstention should be an unmistakable warning. People feel the same with regard to their electoral participation as with regard to their personal opinions: they may freely indulge in both, but in the end they hardly matter.

Is this resignation justified

or does it only indicate an oversaturation with benefits that one takes for granted? After all, it is still up to the voter to decide whether Mrs. Merkel or the AfD, Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump come to power! And it is still up to the voter to elect a social regime like in Sweden or a decidedly neo-liberal one like in Great Britain. Such alternatives continue to be full of meaning! The democratic sovereign may still decide to use his voice for the sake of more social peace at home and greater respect from outside.

And yet the suspicion that even Western democratic states are granting their citizens less and less power is more than just an illusion. If Western peoples were really the lords of their own destiny, they should be happy with what is, after all, the outcome of their own choices. The barometer of satisfaction in Sweden or Great Britain would have to show a higher value than in autocratic China (before the Corona epidemic). But this is definitely not the case. A majority of Chinese look to their own future with optimism, while people in Western states – whether under left-wing or right-wing governments – face it with concern and fear.

But let’s leave psychology aside,

as it is subject to great fluctuations, and turn instead to those objective conditions that increasingly limit democratic freedom. Regardless of whether they are democratically governed or not, all modern states are forced to measure and align their own policies with those of their most successful competitors. Not only the latest inventions of technology, but also the most efficient organization of work or the most effective ways of attracting investment and international corporations are spreading like wildfire across the globe. Large companies always copied the best strategies of their competitors lest they fall behind. External pressure tends to be so overwhelming that they pay little or no attention to the needs of their workforce. But the same thing is happening between countries. These are increasingly behaving as if they were nothing more than variants of big corporations. Democratic self-determination is well on the way to being replaced by undemocratic external conditioning.

The progressive choking of democratic self-determination

is not the work of malicious conspirators against democracy – it is the result of external conditions. Without Germany and Austria succeeding in maintaining a presence on global markets through innovation, they will not be able to maintain their current standard of living. But in order to remain at the top, they must subject their people to the same degree of performance – and ultimately the same working conditions – as their most successful competitors. They must even allow the same concentration of banks and corporations as soon as mere size becomes an advantage in global competition.

And even more: they will have to sacrifice their own industries if their competitors gain an advantage by doing so. The policy of outsourcing industrial production to Asia was not the result of democratic decision nor of government planning – not even the CEOs of German industries wanted to do so, but it was dictated from outside by Germany’s most powerful competitor, the US. After the United States had embarked on this path, giving it a huge cost advantage, the Europeans had no choice but to follow suite, otherwise European products would no longer be able to compete with American products on world markets.

Why does the struggle between left and right political camps

seems rather unimportant after Tony Blair in England or Gerhard Schröder in Germany? Not at all because these two ideological positions suddenly lost credibility. It still makes a big difference whether we want to realize a maximum of material equality or a maximum of freedom.

The loss of significance of both positions is the result of external constraints. It is due to the fact that the individual state is no longer able to enforce its preferences when these are in conflict with the demands of global competition. In other words, the margin left to the democratic sovereign is increasingly restricted by globalization. Freedom only exists where neither a nation’s economic and military position nor the standard of living of its population is at stake. In the election of its President, Austria was able to choose between Alexander Van der Bellen and Norbert Hofer – a difference like between light and darkness. In Francois Hollande’s France, millions of people could take to the streets for or against homosexual marriage – the pressure from outside triggered by global competition only played a role insofar as the decision for this form of human bonds was considered “progressive” by most Western states. But even a decision against homosexual marriage would not have had any influence on the French standard of living.

But in a globalized world

it no longer depends on the decision of the democratic sovereign whether or not the country’s economy continues to follow a path of growth, whether or not it is dominated by international corporations and banks, whether or not Greta Thunberg’s demands are applied.

No – this observation needs to be corrected. It still depends on the democratic sovereign, because theoretically he could indeed elect a party that prohibits economic growth as well as any further increase in the consumption of resources. A democratic majority could even impose a radical green turn and initiate a basic transformation of the economy by reducing the current ecological footprint from more than two globes to the sustainable consumption of just a single one.

But this is precisely the step that no single state will take

Not because government or citizens are too stupid to recognize its necessity. After all, man has never been so foolish as to voluntarily devastate his own garden when he owes his survival to its fruits. The real situation is much more difficult and much more dramatic because the democratic sovereign literally fights against himself as he is torn between two insights that both have equal strength. Of course, every informed person would like put an end to ecological destruction rather today than tomorrow. But at the same time, everybody is equally aware that it would be of no use to his nation or to nature – if a single state sets an example that others do not follow. This applies both to sustainability in our dealing with nature and to the use of increasingly deadly weapons. The state that offers the world a truly Christian example by scrapping from one day to the next its entire nuclear armament will find itself the following day under the guardianship of villains who did not for a moment think of following its lead. Europe, militarily utterly weak when compared to the US, Russia and soon even China, likes to regard its weakness as proof of a higher moral stance. But it could one day bitterly regret this as fatal mistake if the superpowers exploit its weakness by making it the next theatre of war between them (like they did before to so many militarily defenseless states).*1*

The limitations of democratic sovereignty due to global competition

are a lot more pervasive than the interventions of the Brussels Commission in the sovereignty of European member states. In all central matters of national existence industrialized countries such as Germany, France or Canada follow the lead of the world’s most successful nations, just as every successful company constantly looks to its competitors in order to remain competitive. That is why consistent growth and the concomitant sell-out of nature remain categorical imperatives of governmental action as long as they give the individual state greater economic power in the race of nations and its citizens a higher material standard of living. States that would decouple themselves from this trend fall back to the level of developing countries or may even end up among “failed nations”.

The fear of relegation explains why CO2 emissions and the destruction of nature are constantly in the rise, although the need for green policies is being talked about more loudly every year. Every educated person is perfectly aware that progressive growth – both economic and military – is bringing humanity ever closer to its own ruin and that of the planet, but as long as the race of nations continues, they will not be able to do anything serious about it.

The question of whether we still live in democracies

thus allows for a twofold answer. Yes, we may still decide in favor of Merkel and against Höcke (AfD), in favor of Van der Bellen and against Hofer (FPÖ) – and that is an enormous asset. But unless being content with economic marginalization or imposed militarily domination, we must adapt to the most successful “role model” of leading competitors – in other words, we are forced to exchange a substantial part of democratic self-determination for a determination from outside – even doing so in the knowledge that it is precisely this race of competing nations that is leading all of them into disaster.

This insight amounts to an admission of powerlessness. But we must have the courage to face the truth, because only then will we be able to find a way of escape. This can only consist of a willingness in all states to renounce part of their sovereignty in order to put an end to the disastrous race that threatens everyone with both environmental and nuclear destruction. True, this demand too reduces sovereignty but it does so on a voluntary base in preventing disaster while current constraints from outside, that is the race of nations, make us involuntarily court disaster. In a globalized world, where each state influences the fate of all others by consuming scarce resources and destroying precious environment, events do no longer follow man’s true needs and intentions: democracy is in danger of degenerating into a mere farce. In the 21st century, man will reemerge as the master of his destiny only when he entrusts to an international authority the care for the tiny boat that (despite Mars and the Moon) will probably remain forever the only one for mankind.

1 How I hate to write this sentence! On a globe that already resembles a powder keg, every additional atomic bomb means another step towards the apocalypse. Unfortunately, strict pacifism is no alternative either when applied to a shark tank. The global race of nations has maneuvered mankind into a situation from which it can only rescue a supranational authority that ends this race.

The hand on the trigger: How an American president wantonly prepares the next war

The great world powers slipped into World War I without really wanting it. But they had been arming themselves for years, so all that was needed was but a spark – such as the assassination of the Austrian heir to the throne – to detonate a powder keg filled to the rim. Continue reading The hand on the trigger: How an American president wantonly prepares the next war

Apocalypse – When?

Military competition is certainly no invention of our time, nor is war. We saw that comparatively simple but revolutionary technical innovations such as the use of horses, stirrups and combat bows were able to wreak havoc in the hands of nomads. Continue reading Apocalypse – When?

The Curse of Globalization

I am living in Puch near Weiz, a small village in Styria. Some tourists who spend their holidays here will describe the place as dreamy, although local people are by no means idle dreamers, but hard-working men and women. Continue reading The Curse of Globalization

Trump, Putin, Xi – what is it that makes them so similar to each other?

How companies work and what conditions must be met for their proper operation, seems pretty clear. Manufacturing enterprises rely on an infrastructure that allows a constant and reliable supply of energy and raw materials (or primary products). Furthermore they usually require a state-run educational system, which provides the company with the necessary “human material”. Continue reading Trump, Putin, Xi – what is it that makes them so similar to each other?