AfD (Alternative für Deutschland, Alternative for Germany) is the only Islam-critical and anti-EU party in Germany whose members have been elected at the state level (the federal level is coming later this year). Björn Höcke is one of AfD’s most popular leaders, and his charismatic speaking style is evident even to those of us who don’t understand German.
In case you’ve been wondering why Mr. Höcke dropped out of sight last year, the following annotated compilation by JLH will throw a little light on what happened.
Down the Rabbit Hole With the AfD
I am going to tell you a story. It’s a little long, and a little complicated, but I will try to make as few mistakes as possible. It is also more than a little sad, and in one way reminds me of an uncle of mine who knew — as he grew older — that there were certain foods he should no longer eat, because they gave him indigestion, discomfort, burps. Still, sometimes he couldn’t resist, and when he suffered the consequences, he would say that those foods were “repeating” on him. One of the sad things about history is that it, too, “repeats” on us at times, and that will happen in this story too.
It all begins, in a way, on May 8, 1985, when the president of the German Federal Republic, Richard von Weizsäcker, was tasked with commemorating the fortieth anniversary of victory over the Nazi regime. This, in itself, is unusual, when you think about it. The French do not celebrate Waterloo; Rome did not have a festival to commemorate the destruction of three legions by Arminius in the Teutoburg Forest. But unlike the French and Romans in those situations, there was some argument that the Germans, too, had been liberated from the Nazi regime.
President von Weizsäcker — a distinguished member of the CDU (Christian Democrats) and a historian — withdrew for a time to consider and craft his speech. He took as a reference point the biblical axiom that forty years represents the duration of the memory of a generation, and spoke of the necessity for Germans not to allow the greatest crimes of the Nazi regime to fade from their memories. His speech addressed the great harm done to the Jewish people, and the great harm done to the psyche of the German people. One American son of Holocaust survivors I know of — who was in Germany at the time and heard the speech as it was given in, and broadcast from, the Bundestag — was deeply affected by it. It became a touchstone in the struggle of German intellectuals to deal with the heritage of Nazism and the Holocaust.
Four years later, in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet empire began to crumble. It appeared that the other great tyranny of the 20th century was in its death throes. In 1990 — against a background of mixed approval and apprehension, both foreign and domestic — East Germany was essentially absorbed into the Federal Republic of Germany, and two new words were added to the German lexicon: “Wessi” and “Ossi” for the theoretically equal citizens from the old “West” and “East” Germany.
While these external political and geopolitical events were taking place, the focus of international Marxism had shifted. Some years before, encouragement of the anticipated up-from-the-bottom “workers’ revolution” had been replaced by the strategy of a “march through the institutions” which would instead create a top-down cultural transformation, guided by the academic, intellectual and political upper echelons. For every person who received Weizsäcker’s speech as a re-commitment to civilized values, there was another who saw it as one of many weapons to attack any deviation from the new norms.
Whether it was because of public-spirited citizens like Weizsäcker or devious disciples of the Frankfurt School, the guilt has not disappeared. It is still useful to pull out the “Nazi club” as a final, unanswerable argument.
A full 65 years after the end of the Nazi regime — at the beginning of what would become an uncontrolled torrent of officially sanctioned immigration — a CDU member of the Berlin legislature named René Stadtkewitz, fighting a losing battle against the establishment of a mosque in his district (his home was burned out once while he and his family were on a trip), found that his superior in the party would not sanction a planned public seminar to discuss Islam. Only when he threatened to resign from the party did he get permission. But he was alien in that environment, and soon did leave the party.
In 2010, Stadtkewitz with his CDU colleague Marc Doll and Aaron Koenig, who was serving as a member of the steering committee of the Pirate Party, formed a new, Islam-critical party, Die Freiheit (Freedom), named in imitation of Geert Wilders’ Party For Freedom in the Netherlands. The party expanded swiftly to areas beyond Berlin, but almost immediately encountered resistance — especially from the leftist, so-called Antifa — in the form of personal intimidation, rioting protesters and tactics such as boycotts to prevent their access to venues for meetings and conventions. In the 2011 election they failed to make it into the Berlin Landtag. Shortly thereafter, a disagreement over the party’s direction led to the departure of many “moderates” who disapproved of what they saw as a sharp turn to the (Islam-critical) right and, by 2012, it had ceased to exist as a viable national party. A remnant of the party was maintained in Munich by Michael Stürzenberger until this year. Because of his determined resistance to the mega-mosque in Munich, he was personally targeted by both Islamists and Antifa leftists, to such an extent that even his own Stammlokal was closed to him. He has just recently been exonerated in a lengthy trial for Islam-critical “hate-speech.”
And this brings us to AfD — Alternative für Deutschland (Alternative for Germany). Founded in 2013 by the economist Bernd Lucke, whose central concern was the abolition of the euro, the party attracted proportionally more votes in the “new states” (i.e., the states of the former GDR). When a young and charismatic Thuringian member of the party named Björn Höcke proposed bluntly that the party — founded as an anti-euro party — should become much more Islam-critical, he was instantly rebuked by an older Wessi member of the party, whose stern lecture was not too far from “Children should be seen and not heard.” The spark was struck, but Lucke was an economist, not a political infighter, so he procrastinated, hoped to make peace, but eventually — in 2015 — he left the party with a number of followers, mostly Wessis, to form a new and truly insignificant party of his own.
One of those standing behind Lucke when he founded AfD was Frauke Petry, who eventually became his major opponent in the power struggle that changed the party. Frauke Petry — labeled by some the most popular politician in Germany — is an attractive woman in her early forties, the mother of four children by her first husband, pastor Sven Petry. She recently announced her divorce, and then her marriage to Marcus Pretzell — father of her expected child. No doubt by virtue of her previous standing in the party and her leadership of the revolt against Lucke, she is one of two co-leaders, with Jörg Meuthen, an economist on leave from his position as professor of finance and economics. Interestingly, the AfD has just voted not to have a one-person leadership — something that Petry clearly wanted.
What about Björn Höcke? What has become of him since he instigated the split that set AfD on its new path? “Well,” as the suspect says when being interviewed by the authorities halfway through the TV detective show, “it’s complicated.” This is what you might call the evidentiary phase, which works out pretty well as a play in three parts.
You might think that Höcke has not been a wallflower, and you would be right. He is given to stem-winding, barn-burning speeches, with popular appeal. And that is where the play begins. Freely adapted from Aristotle’s consideration of Greek tragedy.
Act I, scene 1: Hamartia — The hero commits a tragic error, possibly transgressing against some sacred law.
On January 17, 2016, Höcke addresses an AfD youth group in Dresden. He is as exuberant as ever, and his fiery speech is so long that I begin my excepts about halfway through it. This is where he shapes a fatal formulation. At this point in his talk, he has already criticized speeches by presidents Richard von Weizsäcker and Roman Herzog, (which were widely perceived as the best of their respective careers) because their visions were not really supportive of the German people. He continues:
What visions are based on and why we Germans have lost the power to create [our own] visions — that is how I would like to conclude my remarks here in Dresden. Many of you know: I spent my childhood and youth in the Rhineland. So I am a trained Wessi (laughter, ironic sympathy). No need to feel sorry for me; I am happy to be on the right side this time. (cheers, applause) My children, my wife and I are happy as can be in Thuringia. Thuringia has become our home. And I tell you, I am completely integrated in Thuringia. (laughter, applause)
So, I spent my childhood and youth in the Rhineland and therefore also have the Wessi perspective, and I know that if there is again a renewal movement that could be successful, then it will originate here in Dresden, here on the territory of the former GDR. (applause) “The bombing of Dresden was a war crime.” On both maternal and paternal sides, I come from a family of the expelled. My father told me early on — because I come from a politically and historically conscious family — what happened in Dresden at the end of WWII.
The war was already decided, the city was crammed with countless refugees from the eastern regions. Most of them were women, children and older people. There was no significant military structure in Dresden — we know that. There was, however, one of the most beautiful city centers in all of Germany. As my father told me, that was why Dresden was called Florence on the Elbe.
The bombing of Dresden and the ensuing firestorm destroyed Florence on the Elbe and the people who lived there. The bombing of Dresden was a war crime. (applause, cheers) It is comparable to the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (approval, applause)
The intent of bombing Dresden and other German cities was nothing less than to rob us of our collective identity. They wanted to destroy us completely, uproot us. And in combination with the re-education begun after 1945, they almost accomplished that. There were no German victims anymore, only German perpetrators.
We are still not able to mourn our casualties. And apparently that was the case again in the undignified procedure with the victims of the Berlin terrorist attack. (applause) The reconstruction of the Frauenkirche [Church of Our Lady] was a glimmer of hope for us patriots that there is still a small spark of German self-assertion.
But, dear friends, thus far it is only facades that have been resurrected. As yet, our mental and emotional states are still those of a completely defeated people. (applause)
So, you’re thinking, is this the fatal error? No, sorry. Not only Germans, but also Americans and Brits feel that way about Dresden. One Brit pilot was so disturbed by his part in the raids that he wrote a letter of apology. Of course, that was pre-1989, so the message was received, ironically, in West Germany. No, the fatal error is set up by these preceding remarks, and it comes now.
We Germans — and I don’t mean you patriots who are gathered here today — we Germans, our people, are the only people who have installed a monument of shame [the Holocaust] in the heart of our capital. (applause)
And instead of making our young generations acquainted with the philanthropists, the earth-shaking philosophers, the musicians, the brilliant explorers and inventors — of which we have so many — instead of introducing our students to this history, German history is made to seem mean and small and ridiculous. That cannot, must not go on! (cheers, long, standing ovation. cries of “Höcke, Höcke!”)
It cannot, it must not and it will not! There is no moral imperative to self-immolation. No such thing. (applause) Just the opposite. There is a moral obligation to pass on this land, this culture, its remaining prosperity and its remaining civil order to the coming generation. That is our moral duty! (applause, cries of “We are the people!”)
If we want to have a future — and we want this future, and more and more Germans are recognizing that they also want to have a future — then we need a vision. But a vision will only come if we find ourselves. We must become ourselves again.
We will only have ourselves, if we once again establish our connection to our history. Franz Josef Strauß remarked: Overcoming the past as the sole long-term task of the entire society — that paralyzes a people. My friends, he was right! (applause)
That was it. “A monument of shame.” Not that others have not spoken of the perpetual and exaggerated sense of guilt expected of all Germans — even those who were unborn or in diapers at the time. But he mentions the memorial intended to show that Germany acknowledges what it did and vows never to forget it. Like Weizsäcker’s speech, the memorial is sacrosanct in post-WWII Germany. Der Spiegel — one of many to comment on the speech — commented on the phrase “monument to shame” by following it with the parenthetical (the Holocaust!).
Act I, scene 2: Refusal to recognize.
The critics gathered and increased, and some were to be found in the AfD. A year later, on January 18, 2017, Höcke finds it necessary to defend himself. In doing so, he cites two public figures, one of whom is either problematic or a gesture of defiance, depending on how you look at it.
Replying to reports that his January 17, 2016 speech in Dresden criticized the Holocaust Memorial of the Germans, the head of AfD in Thuringia, Björn Höcke, has this to say:
“I am astonished at the commentary on my speech of January 17 in Dresden. I am supposed to have criticized the Holocaust Memorial of the Germans. This is a malicious and purposefully defamatory interpretation of what I actually said. What I said literally was: ‘We Germans are the only people that has installed a memorial to shame in the heart of our capital.’
“That is, I characterized the Holocaust — the genocide of Jews by Germans — as a disgrace for our people. And I said that we Germans installed a monument to this still unfathomable crime — this guilt — in the middle of Berlin.
“How is that wrong? What is there to criticize in this comment? Nothing at all! In this connection I would like to recall the speech given by Martin Walser on receiving the Peace Prize of the German Book Trade on October 11, 1998: ‘In the discussion of the Holocaust memorial, posterity can find what was done by people who felt themselves responsible for the conscience of others. The concretization of the center of our capital with a soccer field-sized nightmare. The monumentalization of shame.’ He even spoke of a ‘manipulation of our shame for contemporary purposes.’
“There is no doubt that, with the Holocaust Memorial, we have set up a memorial to our shame. And, by the way, the concept ‘memorial of shame’ is not my invention, but entered political speech a long time ago. In document 14/3126 of the German Bundestag, is: ‘Monuments of shame and of mourning, of pride and of joy are necessary building blocks of the new Germany and the new federal capitol.’
“My intent in the Dresden speech was to scrutinize how we Germans reflect on our history and how it may contribute to our identity in the 21st century. Of course, our self-assurance must include the consciousness of that immense guilt. It is a part of our history. But it is just that: only a part of our history. I also noted that in my speech. Even the architect of the memorial, Peter Eisenman, a Jew, made note of the problematic nature of elevating guilt to be the core of national remembrance. In a Spiegel interview, he said: ‘Of course anti-Semitism took the upper hand in 1930s Germany, a terrible moment in history. But how long does one feel guilty?’ And further: ‘I hope that this memorial, with its absence of recriminations, will help in getting past this guilt. One cannot live with guilt. If Germany did that, the whole population would have to go into therapy.’
“Except for us Germans, no other nation in the world has created in its capital city a place of commemoration of the atrocities it has committed. This capacity to face our own guilt distinguishes us Germans. But so does something else: We invented printing, Martin Luther launched the Reformation. We are the land of philosophers, poets, composers and inventors. I said that in Dresden too, and it was the true core of my comments. Consciousness of guilt alone cannot make for a healthy identity, only a broken one. And we must be clear about that. The visible integration problems in this country are also a result of this broken identity.”
Martin Walser is, of course, the more problematic of his citations. His speech upon accepting the Peace Prize was strongly criticized. One of his later novels was a roman à clef whose protagonist represents a prominent Jewish literary critic of the time, who had been less than kind to Walser’s books. Walser was accused of making anti-Semitic intimations in the book, but the critic himself defended him, in a way, saying that he does not think Walser is an anti-Semite, but that he felt it was necessary to show that the person who was unkindest to his work was a Jew.
Act II, scene 1: Peripeteia-Drastic reversal of fortune.
The judgment of his peers.
There are demands that Höcke be expelled from AfD. This is not unprecedented in AfD or in other parties when someone has offended the party rules in some way or other. There are unsubstantiated rumors that Frauke Petry is behind this move. If nothing else, Höcke would be a formidable competitor if they both won seats in Berlin. But an apparent compromise is reached. Höcke apologizes for his offending remarks. He will run again in Thuringia and consolidate his base there, but will not run for a Bundestag seat.
This transpires at a February 18 AfD meeting.
The Thuringia AfD chief has apologized for his controversial speech on German remembrance culture.
He had allowed room for interpretation in a centrally important German subject. Threatened with expulsion from the party, the Thuringia party head Björn Höcke asked the party base for forgiveness. “Unfortunately, I blew a discussion of an important subject by discussing it in a speech more suited to a beer tent address.”
He had struck the wrong note and allowed room for interpretation. “That was a mistake. I am here to apologize for that.”
The 44-year-old, regarded as right-extreme within the AfD, affirmed that he had broken no party statutes. Amid applause from the delegates and cries of “Höcke” he said: I promise that I do not intend to leave the AfD.”
Nonetheless, he will not stand for the Bundestag. “We who are staying here in Thuringia want to make history in 2019,” said Höcke. In 2019, a new legislature will be elected in Thuringia. At this time, Höcke is both party chief and faction leader in the province.
Act II, scene 2: The chorus makes a judgment.
The steering committee reacted Monday to Höcke’s Dresden speech by proposing expulsion…
AfD vice chair Alexander Gauland criticized the expulsion procedure against Höcke as political stupidity. He regretted that the 44-year-old was not standing for the Bundestag. The AfD would miss him in the Berlin political jungle.
Act II, scene 3: And another comment from the chorus:
Is the AfD Trying to Neuter Itself?
by Wolfgang Hübner
The majority decision of the AfD leadership to enter a motion of expulsion against Björn Höcke — should it be carried out — is just as damaging for the party as it is indicative of its future.
This majority decision is damaging in more than one way.
- This is a procedure that guarantees a sure winner and a sure loser. The loser will be the entire AfD. The winner will be the cartel of parties in Berlin.
- This procedure will intensify existing tensions in the party leadership and in the party at the worst possible moment, and could even provoke a split a few months before Bundestag elections.
- It is a procedure which will foreseeably not lead to an expulsion of Höcke, and will therefore ultimately damage him and no less those who brought the action against him.
- This procedure will certainly scare off more potential new voters than it attracts. That is because most potential AfD voters make decisions based not on personalities like Petry, Gauland or Höcke. but on finding a political alternative to Merkel and the established parties.
- This procedure is being introduced in a changed political situation in which the AfD needs solidarity instead of publicly displayed conflicts or even a split. With the change of personnel in the SPD leadership and the SPD candidate for chancellor, the heretofore successful attempt is being undertaken to change the duel between Merkel/Union/party alliance versus AfD to the (sham) duel of Merkel versus Schulz. This attempt — massively enabled by the media — can only be countered by an AfD that is united, at least to outward appearances.
The majority decision of the leadership is also instructive for the following reasons:
- Not only Höcke himself, but the entire liberal-patriotic wing of AfD, is intended to be driven out, or at least brought under control.
- The planned expulsion of Höcke is intended to accomplish a change of direction in the AfD from a fundamentalist, opposition movement party to a parliamentary party with perspective and the capacity for coalition-building in an established political system.
- With the planned expulsion of Höcke, the majority of the party leadership signals its capitulation to the defenders of the system in politics, media, culture and institutions. This is done in the hope that this capitulation will be honored in the medium or long term. There is little indication that this calculation will bring any benefit.
- With the planned expulsion of Höcke, who made the mistake and has confessed to it, the AfD would surrender the claim of being or becoming the alternative for Germany. It would document its desire to be just an electable alternative in the overall party system.
That is legitimate and even electorally viable. But it is definitely too little in regard to the domestic and international situation of Germany.
Bottom line: The procedure of the majority of the AfD leadership against Björn Höcke is an act of political blindness, inner-party rancor and a completely feckless attempt to pseudo-legally “solve” disputes over party direction.
The rest is more denouement than conclusion. Aristotle’s Anagnorisis is Recognition — of the truth, of oneself. The final act is provided by third-party witnesses, and describes things reminiscent of what happened to Die Freiheit — economic blackmail and rowdy/violent protest — which are also sadly familiar now to Americans, in the land of Lenin and Soros.
Act III — Recognition of how it will be
Scene 1: Déjà vu (The author of the article is the chair of the Pro-Köln group on the Cologne city council. This group is one of the earliest organized attempts to push back against Islamization, specifically in Cologne):
Protests Against “Maritim” Have an Effect: Hotel Chain Blacklists AfB Nationwide
by Markus Wiener in Cologne
After a massive campaign of denunciation and intimidation, the management of Maritim Hotels has announced that it will have no more spaces available for the Cologne party AfD beginning at the end of April. An additional ban in all Maritim Hotels applies to Björn Höcke. The Left/Red/Green ensemble seems thus far unimpressed by the cave-in of Maritim and the AfD expulsion procedure against Höcke. The protests against the AfD convention and Maritim will continue until and unless the convention is rejected — Höcke aside.
The leading alliance responsible for general leftist mobilization — “Cologne Against The Right” — formulated its demand for the unconditional surrender of Maritim and AfD as follows:
Maritim will “for the present” rent no more space to AfD.
The AfD convention will take place in Maritim Cologne. Cologne Against The Right demands notice of the contract.
The massive protests in recent weeks against what had been a privileged partnership between the Maritim chain and the AfD have had an effect. As late as the beginning of this week, the AfD spokesman was speaking of the good relationship between AfD and Maritim, which had endured for years. That seems to be over…
“Even if we are a little irritated at the phrase ‘for the present,’ we are glad that the widespread protests are having an effect, and hope that this announcement is not resolved if Mr. Höcke does not appear at the convention on March 22nd and/or is expelled from the AfD. There are many Höckes in the AfD. Happy as we are at this step taken by Maritim headquarters, we continue to demand that Maritim reject the convention in Cologne.”
That is, the leftist enemies of democracy have now tasted blood. Further bolstered by a broad alliance around Mayor Henriette Reker, the organized Carnival and all the old parties in Cologne. Which was confirmed on Tuesday in a turbulent debate in the Cologne city council and further confirmed by Mayor Reker.
Meanwhile, the nationwide mobilization of leftist-extremist, thuggish squads against AfD continues unabated. As I predicted elsewhere, the 22nd of April — like the Anti-Islamization conference in 2008 — threatens to become a hot potato for all those involved. In the foggy minds of many leftists and bleeding hearts, even the idea of a huge patriotic event west of the Magdeburg-Schwerin line [i.e. beyond the old lands of East Germany] is the stuff of nightmares.
Act III, scene 2: Deja vu all over again:
A Citizen Reports From Münster
Dear Friends, Patriots, Party Colleagues and Interested Readers:
I hope you are sitting comfortably. This could take a while. Yesterday, my wife and I were guests at the AfD New Year reception in Münster. And I was — to put it mildly — shocked!! My wife, who refrains even more than I from political activities, even more so.
It started with our not even getting to the city hall, because it was surrounded in depth on all sides by demonstrators. Only with the help of the police, who led us through numerous barriers and identity checks, did we arrive at the entrance to the city hall — physically unharmed, but cursed and screamed at in the worst imaginable way. The diligent identity checks were clearly necessary and justified, considering the slavering, screaming mass which was standing outside and roaring. Later I will comment on the surrounding businesses decorated with EU flags, because the AfD is an anti-Europe party.
Having arrived in the lobby of the Peace Hall, we discovered that there were people in Münster other than the brawling fugitives from intelligence outside in the cold. People like you and me, from laborers and craftsmen to white-collar workers, to academics and lawyers, doctors, teachers, independent contractors and entrepreneurs. There were interesting, honest conversations about this and that. It was interesting that half of those present were not members of AfD, but had come out of curiosity about who had rented the Peace Hall.
The speeches were good, factual and not even a little racist, anti-Semitic, Nazi-leaning or that kind of thing. The question times for Petry and Pretzell were factual and disciplined. Thus far, unfortunately, nothing scandalous to report…
In the aftermath of the event, we had the opportunity to speak personally with Dr. Petry and Mr. Pretzell as well as other citizens.
What a difference from the brawling, foaming mob outside, whose screams and “musical” accompaniment could certainly be heard in the hall, but could not disturb the speeches, even if the press maintains otherwise.
It was clear that the people outside had no interest in political discussion, but only exclusion and defamation of dissidents — behavior we are acquainted with from 1933-1945 and should no longer exist in our Western, tolerant world, which accepts the opinions of others. What was outside there, was pure Nazi culture!!
If the police had not been so consistent in ensuring the safety of the New Year Reception attendees, much worse would have happened. Found on the demonstrators who were arrested were explosives, rockets, homemade fireworks, as well as butterfly knives and other varieties. This was a demo that intended destruction, damage, bodily harm and perhaps worse.
A big thank-you to the police who prevented much worse from happening, identified the potential, left-extremist perpetrators and arrested them.
What are these people demonstrating against? Aside from the 70% professional demonstrators who are against anyone and anything, there are those who are just against AfD. What do they object to?
- That AfD criticizes mass immigration into our social system?
- That AfD wants to do more for families and education?
- That AfD wants to strengthen the police and the rule of law?
- Or that AfD is for the existing right of asylum, but against the abuse of the right to asylum?
- Or perhaps that AfD insists on adherence to existing laws like Dublin I + II, Schengen, the asylum law as well as the laws on protection of the borders?
- Or is it that AfD rejects the octopoidal EU central government and advocates a Europe of sovereign homelands?
And this brings us to the banners on the businesses…Obviously business people wish for an octopus Europe, which makes everyone alike, regardless of their economic accomplishment and will, in the end, have us Germans and German business people pay for everything, because the other countries CAN’T!
The fact is that ca. 50 groups and organizations that have sent their followers to demonstrate are ALL lobbyists feeding at the trough of the red-black-green government. They are simply afraid that — if the AfD gets into legislatures and the Bundestag and takes on the responsibility of governing — it will turn off the money spigot for these lobbyists, the leftist societies and associations, the licensing agencies, etc, and direct the money to its proper destination: the schools, police, road-building, internal security, and as tax relief for those who, in spite of working, are living a marginal existence.
That is the only fear of these pillaging communities, and that is why they defame the AfD, knowingly spread lies, in the spirit of the NSDAP of 1933-1945. And in exactly the same way, they send the associations, societies, the indoctrinated people who have been “informed” by the tax-supported media, to the front to demonstrate.
And the movers and shakers, the lobbyists and system politicians who are interested in the pot of money from the taxpayers and in personal enrichment, are sitting comfortably in the background and encouraging their foot-soldiers, whom they reward for their efforts with the next tax hike, lowering the interest rate and pension reduction. Naturally always in nice, homeopathic doses and only AFTER the election, so the voting troglodytes don’t notice it.
And as we leave historic Germany, the White Rabbit, the Mad Hatter and the Dormouse are having tea, while the Jabberwocky devastates the land, and Tweedledee and Tweedledum do what they do best — try not to notice.
Somewhere Oswald Spengler is laughing.