And Never the Twain Shall Meet?

JLH has prepared a report on the latest and most serious instance of ideological conflict within the AfD Party in Germany.

And Never the Twain Shall Meet?
by JLH

Kipling had it figured out: Oh, East is East, and West is West and never the twain shall meet…

The acting head of the AfD party (Alternativ für Deutschland — Alternative for Germany), a native of Hamburg and the party’s representative to the EU parliament, attacks the AfD chief in Thuringia who has suggested a more “rightist” direction for the party. To bring it a little closer to home, just imagine that Ted Cruz is from East Germany and Karl Rove from the West.

A previous “one-theme” party of great interest to counterjihadists — Die Freiheit — was riven by the results of its internal elections, causing the desertion of many of its leading moderates, and never passed the electoral threshold to enter the Bundestag. AfD, founded by the economist Bernd Lücke, was also an apparent one-theme party — anti-euro — and made it the first time, with its greatest show of electoral strength being in the east, i.e., the old GDR.

Then PEGIDA happened and it developed that some AfD members were supporting it.

The head of its Thuringia branch recently issued an “Erfurt Resolution” decrying attacks from some in the western section of the party and calling for more attention to the fact that they were elected to be different from the established parties, closer to the people and more patriotic.

Below is the resolution, followed by its repudiation by one western party officer, then the reaction to the reaction and finally reactions from other party leaders.

First, Der Flügel, March 14, 2015:

This internet site, which was initiated by the two state [provincial] heads, (Thuringia) and André Poggenburg (Saxony-Anhalt), serves as a coalition instrument inside the AfD. The first action of this site is to publish the “Erfurt Resolution.” It was presented in the Thuringian party congress in March 14, 2015. The first signatories include office-holders of the AfD from nine federal states. Here is the text:

Erfurt Resolution

The project “Alternative for Germany” is in danger. We have had glittering electoral successes in the past year, but we are on the verge of squandering the confidence the voters have placed in us.

The citizens voted for us because they hope that we are different from the established parties — more democratic, more patriotic, more courageous. But now, instead of the alternative we promised, we are becoming more and more comfortable with the political enterprise — the world of technocracy, cowardice and betrayal of the best interests of the country.

In our political actions, we have been concentrating timidly on the areas indicated for us by institutions, other parties and media, rather than setting our own boundaries and expanding them. We too often display that overeager obedience which does not change, but hardens, the situations we set out to oppose.

The AfD could credibly and knowledgeably communicate to citizens its democratic concern with those problems that are never directly addressed. The original signatories to the Erfurt Resolution believe the AfD’s exemplary success is threatened by unnecessary limitation of the its political range. By doing that, we lose what represents our raison d’être.

The party has

  • alienated and offended members whose profile is indispensable;
  • stayed aloof from citizen protest movements and even hastened to distance itself from them, even though thousands of AfD members have been participating as demonstrators or sympathetic supporters;
  • consciously eschewed the support of electoral winners from Thuringia, Brandenburg and Saxony in the election campaign in Hamburg, and with it, an appeal to voters which would have made the electoral success of an alternative tangible and would have facilitated the activation of non-voters.

The original signatories of this resolution see a fatal signal here. That is, the provocative alteration of the AfD to a technocratically-directed party threatens the compromise arrived at — with enormous self-discipline on the part of those participating — in the run-up to the Bremen conference.

Despite all efforts to narrow its focus, countless members of the AfD still see it

  • as a fundamental, patriotic and democratic alternative to the established parties,
  • as a movement of our people in opposition to the social experiments of the last decades (gender mainstreaming, multiculturalism, educational relativism, etc.),
  • as a resistance movement against further undermining of Germany’s sovereignty and identity,
  • as a party with the courage for truth and truly free speech.

Disappointment over the AfD’s failure to acknowledge a fundamental political turn (Wende) in Germany is palpable in all of our associations (and above all in the East).

The original signatories

  • see the real raison d’être of our party in the complete commitment of the AfD to a fundamental political change in Germany,
  • know that this commitment will lead to a genuine confrontation with the old parties, the media and the implementers of the debilitating social experiments,
  • do not fear these confrontations and
  • require of our office-holders on boards and in legislatures that they meet these confrontations with courage and truth.

The original signatories call upon each AfD member who supports this resolution to sign it. The goal is the gathering of all forces in the AfD who are intent on a genuine alternative to the existing parties.

Erfurt, March 2015

Original signatories:

  • Björn Höcke, AfD, Party chair and speaker for Thuringia
  • André Poggenburg, AfD, Party chair for Saxony-Anhalt
  • Dr. Alexander Gauland, AfD, chair in the Brandenburg legislaeturesowie
  • Dr. Christina Baum, Spokesperson for the chair, Main-Tauber district
  • Otto Baumann, Spokesperson for the chair, Werra-Meißner district
  • Birgit Bessin, legislator, AfD Brandenburg, parliamentary executive secretary
  • Eugen Ciresa, 1. spokesperson for district association, Ulm/ Alb-Donau
  • Markus Frohnmaier, state chair, Junge Alternative. Baden-Württemberg
  • Lydia Funke, state chair, Saxony-Anhalt
  • Corinna Herold, legislator, member of executive committee, Central Thuringia
  • Andreas Kalbitz, legislator, acting party chief in the Brandenburg legislature
  • Georg Kritzelt, state chair, Saxony-Anhalt
  • Stefan Möller, legislator, parlamentary party leader and speaker for state chair, Thurimngia
  • Wiebke Muhsal, legislator, acting chair, Thuringia, district spokesperson, Gera/Jena/Saale-Holzland-Kreis
  • Dr. Manfred Otto, district chair, Weserbergland
  • Alexander Raue, treasurer,, AfD Saxojny-Anhalt
  • Andreas Rösler, member f executive committee, Meckenburg-Western Pomerania
  • Daniel Roi, district chair, Anhalt-Bitterfeld
  • Thomas Rudy, legislator, district spokesperson, Altenburg/Greiz
  • Ulrike Schielke-Ziesing, state treasurer, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
  • Dr. Hans-Thomas Tillschneider, member of executive committee, AfD Saxony
  • Paul Traxl, district chair, Aichach-Friedberg
  • Franz Wiese, legislator, AfD Brandenburg

And from Junge Freiheit:

Discord in the AfD: Henkel Warns Against An “Ethnic Mindset”

Disagreement over the direction to be taken by the AfD is coming to a boil. After publication of the “Erfurt Resolution,” AfD acting spokesman, Hans-Olaf Henkel, blasted those responsible and suggested they change parties. Their spokesman, Thuringian AfD head, Björn Höcke, is outraged and demanding a reaction from the national party.

Berlin: Over the weekend, the acting head of Alternative for Germany (AfD), Hans-Olaf Henkel sharply criticized the “Erfurt Resolution” given out in Erfurt. “This declaration is not only grotesquely formulated, it is full of inconsistencies and to some extent turns the facts upside down.,” Henkel said to JUNGE FREIHEIT.

The party’s MEP (member of EU parliament) cautioned that the resolution was oblivious of how damaging “pot shots from the East” were on the results of polls and elections in the West. Voters who had voted AfD in the European election had been frightened by such statements and therefore had gone back to voting for the FDP [Free Democrats] criticized the former head of the BDI [Federation of German Industry]. The same effect could be seen in national polls.

“Sectarian Extreme Right Party”

“If we want to stay successful, then it [can be] only as a true party of the people and not a sectarian extreme right party that is reduced to an ethnic mindset and accepts xenophobia in the guise of opposition to widespread “political correctness.” A party constructed according to the tendency of the Erfurt Resolution would have — with the possible exception of Lower Saxony — no chance in any of the western federal states, or in the Federal Republic as a whole,” Henkel warned.

He also didn’t need “coaching on ‘Courage Under Fire’[1] from anyone — certainly not from people like this, who only talk about what is happening instead of what the point is.” In Henkel’s opinion, there are plenty of leftist populists in other parties, and the Republikaner and NDP[2] had always satisfied the “need for right populist rabble-rousers.”

The Erfurt Resolution authored by AfD state chiefs of Thuringia and Saxony-Anhalt, Björn Höcke and André Poggenburg, was announced on the Sunday of the state party conference in Armstadt, Thuringia . In the opinion of the signatories, the party is in danger of losing its character as an alternative to the established parties through a continuing accommodation to the political mainstream.

“Wild-eyed ethnic ideas”

Thuringia AfD chief, Björn Höcke reacted with outrage to Henkel’s criticism.

Henkel repudiated the reaction. “Neither Bernd Lucke nor I have to listen to Mister Höcke telling us that we are allegedly too cowardly to open our mouths. Accusing us of ‘overeager obedience’ is downright absurd. If the party is damaged and voters and members offended, it will be by such insane attacks.”

He had learned this in the Hamburg election campaign, where he was repeatedly addressed critically concerning the relationship of AfD in East Germany to “‘Pegida, Legida, Kögida’ and ‘Putin worshippers’ and ‘Schlieffen plans’[3] from the East.” Several “wild-eyed ethnic ideas and a primitive anti-Americanism” were of special concern.

“With the exception of Bernd Lucke, hardly anyone was as engaged as I in the election campaigns in the East German states. And we learned over and over that, especially in the middle class — small business people and manual workers — there was a great interest in all the themes we stood for, not just those which can be better presented by the Republikaner and the NPD, as the resolution implies.” It was unfortunate that when it came to this resolution “the first reasonable people in the party turn their backs.”

Henkel recalls political guidelines

Henkel recalled that he had for years been critical of the excessive growth of Islam, “more than others in the party,” that he had suggested adopting the Canadian point system in the Europaprogram[4] and he saw no contradiction between “readiness for reform” and “liberal” and “conservative” and “national.” “We must only take care that we preserve what is right and reform what is necessary. That was exactly what the AfD guidelines expressed.”

You had to wonder, said Henkel, whether some people catapulted into the limelight by election results had let success go to their heads. Anyone who took positions and gave opinions that lie outside the guidelines decided by the overwhelming majority of the AfD grassroots would be better to sick to internal dialogues than to speak out.

Henkel advises Höcke to change parties

“If they no longer agree with the AfD program, there would still be the alternative of choosing another party, instead of trying to split the AfD. And I could give them a suggestion about where they would be more comfortable…”

At any rate, according to Henkel, the resolution has a good side. “The process will lead to a clarification and will show that only a minority of the party supports positions like those of the Erfurt Resolution.”

“The AfD must not let itself be diverted from “being a party of conservatives and reformers,” Henkel emphasized. “The conservative aspect of the party stands for what is being preserved and the liberal aspect for change. It is about knowing the right things to preserve and the right things to change.”

Höcke demands the national party react

Höcke reacted with incomprehension to Henkel’s attacks. “Henkel’s attack is very close to ad hominem insult. With no reference points, it says nothing about the resolution but a great deal about him,” says Höcke, and demands a reaction from the national party.

Henkel’s comments suggested that he had not really read the resolution, opined the Thuringian AfD chief. There was no other explanation for accusing the initiators of planning a “sectarian extreme right party.”

“The Erfurt Resolution does not intend to split, but to unite. Its intent is to help in overcoming party infighting. That is exactly why it does not separate the party into liberal and conservative, but into established and alternative,” Höcke explained. “It calls for the AfD to stay true to its firmly established task of renewal.”

“The ‘Know-It-All Wessi’ type seems not to have died out yet”

It was also too bad that Henkel repeatedly spoke of the eastern organizations of the AfD in disparaging tones. “It would never occur to me to publicly call any opinions in the party ‘wild-eyed’ or ‘primitive.’ The ‘Know-It-All Wessi’ type seems not to have died out yet.”

He himself had grown up in the West, said the Thuringian AfD head, but today he thought “that people in the East — based on their historical experiences — are more sensitive to undesirable developments.”

To his knowledge, none of the original signatories of the Erfurt Resolution had demanded excluding or isolating members because they were too liberal. “An MEP suggesting that the leader of a parliamentary delegation leave the party is strong stuff, to which the national leadership must react.”

Adam also enters the argument

On Monday, AfD head Bernd Lucke[5] warned the party against infighting, but retained some distance from the Erfurt Resolution. “There will not be another AfD, because the success of the AfD is firmly tied to the political goals found in our programs and guidelines,” he emphasized to JUNGE FREIHEIT.

Then on Tuesday, co-spokesperson Konrad Adam joined the debate. If the AfD wanted to stay together, it had to overcome the gaps between East and West, he told this paper. “It is not just pot shots from the East, but heated answers from the West, and it is not clear yet which one is doing more damage,” he said.

To really play its role as a new major party, the AfD would have to reflect the breadth of the population. “And that includes not only robust resistance against the failed policy of preserving the euro but also the concern about the consequences of unregulated immigration,” he said.


1.   See Wikipedia for a summary of the film.
2.   A rightist party and an extreme rightist party
3.   The Schlieffen Plan, devised in 1905 to ensure German victory over a Franco-Russian alliance by holding off Russia with minimal strength and swiftly defeating France by a massive flanking movement through the Low Countries.
4.   The AfD election platform with points such as opposition to the “unified” euro.
5.   Party founder.

Historical note: the five “new federal states” that had been the German Democratic Republic are Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-West Pomerania, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, and Thuringia. For the purposes of reconstruction, including creating an administrative structure from the ground up, each one of them was originally (1991) “paired” with West German states:

  • Brandenburg with North Rhine-Westphalia
  • Mecklenburg-West Pomerania with Bremen, Hamburg, Schleswig-Holstein
  • Saxony with Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria
  • Saxony-Anhalt with Lower Saxony
  • Thuringia with Bavaria, Hesse, Rhineland-Palatinate

22 thoughts on “And Never the Twain Shall Meet?

  1. Any German CJ party must learn to separate ‘the Right’ from those who are labelled the ‘extreme right’ but who are, in reality, socialists, but slightly to the right of the ‘extreme left’. In non-cultural marxism, the ‘Right’ is about nationalism and small government, however the cultural marxists have moved political polarities to the idea that ‘right is racist’ and ‘left is inclusive’. This is a lie,

    Thus Nazism is the python in the cradle, and no baby can survive until the python is removed to its proper place, a glass case in a museum or zoo.

    There is a sensitivity to ‘racism’ in Germany, but the attempted genocide of Jews and Slavs 70 years ago does not mean that modern Germany has to roll over and succumb to the same Islam that supported that same genocide so wholeheartedly and is still waging that same war, particularly against Jews and Israel, and is too, wholeheartedly supported by the parties of the ‘left’.

    Fighting leftist ‘multiculti’ is fighting the spirit of Nazism. The objects of both cliques were/are the same, a new Germany inhabited by ‘New Germans’.

    In order to defend the true Germany, Nazism, as an historical communist cult, must be placed firmly back where it belongs in the nation’s mindset; as an offshoot of the worst type of murderous communist socialism.

    • The Chinese Maoists used to denounce politically incorrect statements as “counter revolutionary” or “reactionary”.

      Now, the same people in the west denounce things using the term “racist” for “counter revolutionary” and “inclusive” for “revolutionary”. Same Maoist tactics, just using different words.

      So “counter revolutionary” or “racist” both mean “whatever we don’t want you to believe”.

  2. Faaaaaar to much verbiage and left/right (but no “center”) political gobbledegook here. (See how far you must read to get to the word ‘Islam’, for example.)
    They should concentrate on the “little” things we (USA) consider basic. Things like freedom, liberty, free speech, free press and the right of the INDIVIDUAL to run his or her life free from Europe’s stifling conformity.
    Get back to our civilization’s principles and forget concentrating on how many of your buddies’ signatures you can get on your ‘petition’ or whatever.
    It reeeeally shouldn’t be too hard to get yourselves together when an enemy of this size, capability and LOCATION is quite willing (and able) to start cutting your throats (if they haven’t already!)

    • Germany is a different culture, much more methodical than most Americans are willing to give time to. This reads pretty much cut-and-dried German statement of belief:

      1) This is what we believe
      2) We’re squandering it with stupid arguments among ourselves
      3) We must cohere and
      4) (call to action).

      Let’s not also forget that the former GDR overlaps historical Prussia (with the exception of her eastern lands, ceded to Poland at the Treaty of Versailles). There is an absolute doggedness in the ethnic Prussian character (a close girlfriend is such) which digs down and digs in when survival is at stake. Let’s hope that the AfD can use this ancient and honorable trait to reclaim its culture and its country.

  3. Update on Pegida: Wilders will attend Dresden walk on April 13. They’re still in business.

  4. These discussions remind me of Gilda Radner’s clever Saturday Night Live comedy skit wherein she was the spokeswoman for a product that was very obliquely suggested to be a product of some kind for women but which could only be spoken of with the maximum of circumlocution. Summing up she said, “This product solves the problem of being without it.”

    With the friendliest of intentions, I have to say that these discussions seem cut from the same cloth. There is considerable murkiness in what is said and one’s eyes glaze over reading about factional strife over irrelevancies, even provocations.

    MCin Sderot provides far more clarity in his short comment. Words like “conservative” and “liberal” seems to me to be irrelevant in the circumstances and there seems a great reluctance to say “white, German” interests. Even “ethnic” is a word mentioned as though a too-clear word would cause YKW to spring from the grave.

    Germany (and the West) are drowning in a sea of idiocy that inundates superb cultures under waves of incompatible and hostile foreigners. Multiculturalism is a dishonest term that masks a vicious attack on Western peoples and the seemingly artificial split between eastern and western factions in the AfD seem trivial in the face of a lack of clarity in what it stands for. It is not that AfD is “rightist” in the current debased political argot but that the established parties are so left. And that they rely on and support AntiFa, the epitome of a reborn radical leftist National Socialism.

    As Confucius said, the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. Leftists are dedicated to lies and devising terminology that distract attention.

    • Confucius was right. In Genesis, the power to name things is given to Adam and he sets to work setting himself apart from the things he names by the very act of naming them.

      Multiculturalism is a dishonest term that masks a vicious attack on Western peoples and the seemingly artificial split between eastern and western factions in the AfD seem trivial in the face of a lack of clarity in what it stands for.

      In some ways the split isn’t artificial; the terms “redneck Rebel” and “damYankees” signify a still-simmering divide. I have learned to respect Jung’s idea of a collective unconscious that is metabolized by each generation and passed on to the next.

      Leftists are “dedicated to lies” because that’s their sole inheritance. One can imagine how such a poverty of consciousness would generate the level of hatred they display – and are quick to project onto Other.

      • I take your point on the still-simmering divide. I have it in my mind that those in the former GDR are more realistic when it comes to state thuggery but there are still people (“folks”) there who still miss those times and ways. I met one such woman in the U.S. who was in the second category. She remembered those times as peaceful, orderly, and sufficient. Relative numbers?

        I know nothing of Jung’s collective unconscious (COLUNC). I was thinking today how dependence on the state supplanted religion as a person’s contact with the supernatural. In medieval times, the king and the church intervened for the subject to make an imperfect world more tolerable. (H/t: Throne Altar Liberty.) The incredible power the socialist ideas exerted on Western minds after 1880 (see Rose L. Martin) suggests that they resonated profoundly with the human psyche. For the first time (?) large numbers of humans were offered a life without (coming soon!) the terrors and indignities of relying on one’s self and one’s family (read, spit, “patriarchy”).

        Therein might lie the explanation for why Western minds are so impervious to the overwhelming evidence of Islamic contempt, obscurantism, savagery, and subversion. “Diversity” is on its face an absurd thing for the _summum bonum_ and the CJ forces labor with great difficulty to warn Westerners even with the evidence readily at hand of the last 1400 years and the gigantic persuasive efforts of, this great site, Boston, Spencer, Geller, JW, DW, Shoebat, and many others.

        The existence of open borders in the U.S., the horrendous transformation of the federal government into Leviathan, a corrupt Supreme Court, an emasculated center left opposition party, the evisceration of the Constitution, a president with a forged birth certificate and as constitutionally qualified to hold his office as Lassie, astronomical government spending and debt, an unopposed invasion of 30-80 million foreigners, the MB infiltration of the government, the stunning infiltration of the U.S. government and universities by communists, and a loss of 96% of the value of the dollar in the last 102 years each by themselves should send major segments of our population into a near-earth orbit but Americans are passive and as silent as a boom box with no batteries. The loss of liberty and the slaughter and grief of the last century are, shall we say, not instructive in the least.

        The minds of Westerners are seemingly impervious to reason, repelled by it just as two magnets strongly resist each other if oriented in a certain way. Ergo, what is going on is supremely not rational and the the attempt to counter the delusion is unsurprisingly met with aggression, rage, and hysteria because the “attack” is really on the subconscious.

        Is there anything “collective” about any of this, or should it just be consciousness that takes hold in vast numbers independently?

        Earlier religious faith must have spoken to the same human need. Perhaps now it is clearer what a catastrophe secularism has been for the West.

  5. The way the leftists see it, Left is right and Right is wrong. Unfortunately for them, the entire left/right dichotemy is decades out of date.

  6. It seems to me the tendency to split is inherent in representational governments: the party forms around a strong objective, but as its leaders sniff real power, they diffuse the message enough to bring in people with different objectives.

    A parliament exacerbates the problem, since the Prime Minister can last maybe a year without the active support of a majority of members. Thus, any government is a frothing coalition of partners beholden to the most obdurate holdouts for getting their way.

    The US government, particularly as structured by the original Constitution, composes the government of several distinct constituents, but allows the President to hold office for a set term. Unfortunately, for the past 100 years or so (more, if you count Abraham Lincoln), the chief executives, bureaucracy, and Supreme Court have diluted the structure of Constitutional government. Thus, today, you have the President able to in effect create and execute laws totally on his own. In the unlikely case of an anti-jihadist elected President, would he have the power to halt Muslim immigration for at least the balance of his term?

    Any party actively looking to win power will dilute its message to the greatest extent possible to encompass the greatest number of people. Both parties will do so, with the result that very small minorities that vote as a bloc (blacks, Muslims, Jews) have an inordinate power in making a critical balance.

    I wish I could even suggest a solution to the dilemma. If I had to offer a suggestion, it would be to try to make sure that whatever solution a country comes up with, it can pursue the solution without outside interference. Which makes me think that having a nuke or two in an unknown place might make for very good insurance against outside countries sending in their armies to enforce politically correct principles.

    • The East Germans were subjected *under* the Soviet Union. They HATED the Stasi, their government, and pretty much everything else associated with the post-WWII Soviet takeover. Of course, it was worth their lives to actually say anything about it.

      With the fall of der Mauer in 1989 (I was privileged enough to have two young German men staying with DH and me that very day; we watched it on TV, three of us with tears running down our eyes), the natural, unfettered nature of the “East German” people slowly began to re-emerge.

      By now, it seems to me that the ancient and (to me) honorable Prussian characteristics which were the foundation of this population are, finally, after nearly 100 years, re-emerging. I have hope that they will be able to effect a change in their culture and their country.

      • All true, but the sudden cessation of milk from the government udder caused widespread resentment among the now-freed East Germans. Liberty is a two-edged sword if you’re a socialist and your Prussian characteristics have been beaten out of you.

        We can watch it here: people will gladly surrender their autonomy in return for not having to strive. The temptation to remain a child taken care of by a nanny state is all too often overwhelming.

        • Agreed. That’s why it has taken a while for the traditional character to resurface. Those people who were born and raised under the “State will supply” system were very jolted and disoriented at the fall of der Mauer.

          But that was just over 25 years ago, and a new generation is here. I lay some hope on them.

  7. History lesson time!

    The political terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution (1789–1799), referring to the seating arrangement in the Estates General: those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization,[5] while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime. Use of the term “Left” became more prominent after the restoration of the French monarchy in 1815 when it was applied to the “Independents”.[6]

    The term was later applied to a number of movements, especially republicanism during the French Revolution in the 18th century, followed by socialism,[7] communism and anarchism in the 19th and 20th centuries.[8] Since then, the term left-wing has been applied to a broad range of movements[9] including the civil rights movement, anti-war movements, and environmental movements,[10][11] as well as a wide range of parties.[12][13][14]


    At this point I’d consider “left” to refer to things derived from neo-Marxism and Maoism. However due to possible confusion it seems better to just point out how beliefs are derived from neo-Marxist conflict theory, critical theory, post-modern philosophy like metanarrative control, etc.

    The main problem comes in when people want to claim that civil rights necessarily depends on policies derived from Marxist zero-sum social conflict theory (such as affirmative action) rather than what it actually depends on which is equal application of the law, equal protection under the law, etc.

    • Nimrod, I confess I have no understanding of Neo-Marxist conflict theory, etc. Such are almost certainly likely not to persuade our target audience as they seem abstract and recondite. To me, anyway.

      Ann Coulter seems to me to be the perfect attack machine with her deft use of humor and juxtaposition.

      Mark Levin recently correctly pointed out that what the left wants is invariably termed a “civil right” and that they do their utmost to constitutionalism their agenda as well. This can be attacked as you suggest.

      I liked the character in _The First Circle_ who endeavored to speak the language of maximum clarity. E.g., “foot cloths” not “socks.” This is something our AfD friends aren’t doing, though I appreciate that they do and must operate in the oddest of odd political and social environments. And they have gotten results.

      • “Language of Maximum Clarity” was of course a misnomer, Colonel. It’s thirty-odd years since I read Solzhenitzyn’s novel, but the character in question was obsessed with removing words of foreign origin from Russian even though this often made things less clear. Deeply ironic, so very appealing to Russians!

        • Your memory is better than mine. I’m sure about the socks/foot cloths example but I don’t recall that the character objected to “socks” as being a foreign word. I think the objective would have been the “language of maximum purity” if the character objected solely to foreign accretions.

          An interesting point that I must revisit as it’s a nifty image a la Orwell’s first duty to restate the obvious, owtte.

        • The Russian word for “sock” (close-fitting item for the foot) is “nosok.” This ultimately derives from Greek “sukkhos” and then Latin “soccus,” whence all the other familiar words derive.

          Makes sense to me that a “purifier” of Russian would want to remove “nosok.” 🙂

  8. Cut to the chase Nimrod. Skip the history lesson and simply refer to the Left wing as the Sinister wing.

    It would help if the Right were more universally adroit, but we’ve had enough of utopian dreams.

  9. His name is ‘Lucke’, no umlaut. Luecke means ‘gap’, which doesn’t describe him.

Comments are closed.