Siemens and the Siemens Foundation: Shift from a ideology think tank of the black-brown New Right in the 80s and 90s to a black- green think tank under Joe Kaeser and the roll back under Bosch?

Siemens and the Siemens Foundation: Shift from a ideology think tank of the black-brown New Right in the 80s and 90s to a black- green think tank under Joe Kaeser and the roll back under Bosch?

With his AfD criticism, the remark that he prefers headscarf girls to BDM girls, his support for the unconditional basis income and his offer to Luise Neubauer, member of the Green Youth and leadership alpha woman of Friday for Future Germany, to become a member of the Siemens supervisory board, Siemens boss Joe Kaser showed a clear profile . He also appeared on the Green Economic Council and there was broad agreement between Annalena Baerbrock and him as the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemine Zeitung (FAZ) reported:

“It is not known whether Joe Kaeser actually filled out the Green membership application offered by Annalena Baerbock. But it should not be far from that. At the Green Business Congress in Berlin on Friday, the Siemens boss presented himself as a great climate friend. “Super great”, “absolutely brilliant”, “really really cool”: With these words he hailed the expansion of renewable energies, the conversion of the automotive industry towards electromobility and much more. This Congress is not the Greens’ first approach to business. For months, those in charge of the party have been looking for specific contact with companies, especially co-chairwoman Baerbock.

 She spoke at the BDI’s annual meeting last year; In an economic advisory board, the party has also gathered around 50 not only Green-friendly managers, with whom she meets regularly. In the past, the Greens of the economy would have said “Not like that”, remembers Baerbock: “Of course we have changed.” And so it was anything but an exchange of blows that took place on the stage of the Kosmos cinema in Berlin-Friedrichshain. At first Kaeser lectured on the fact that companies must serve society, that is the only reason they would exist. Regarding the controversial Siemens project in an Australian coal mine, he said: “We should never have done that.” He received around 16,000 angry emails in the days that followed. His teaching: “The facts can be what they want – reality is determined by the perception of the people.” In Germany, the coal phase cannot end fast enough for him: “It cannot be that we need until 2038 so that we can are carbon free. If you want, you can do that until 2030. “

At one point, however, the cuddle course on stage began to falter: when it came to the market. Kaeser countered Baerbock’s praises of a “socio-ecological transformation” with “I don’t like this word so much, I miss the market.” To which Baerbock replied that the market itself was initially neutral, neither good nor bad. “Politics must steer it in such a way that it contributes to prosperity.” For example, the Greens want to dictate that the auto industry must use a certain amount of carbon-neutral steel. 10 percent at the beginning, then gradually more. These are the program items that managers like Kaeser still do not like to hear, despite all their enthusiasm for the climate. “2 to 2.5 million people and their families depend on the auto industry,” Kaeser recalled. “That is the prosperity of the country.” However, the two quickly agreed that only new electric cars should be allowed to be registered today. “If you are in government next year, you only have four years, you will never make it,” said Kaeser, referring to the ambitious climate goals of the Greens. In the end, he allowed himself “a little address to your party”: As much as he was in favor of a socio-ecological market economy – with the emphasis on the market -: “You won’t be able to do it with bans.” For the first time  you could hear a pain-filled moan in the up until then quiet hall  . And laughter when Kaeser advised to change consumer behavior in gentler ways. “If someone wants to drive a SUV, then llet him do so !” He shouted into the hall. “But then it doesn’t cost 500 euros, but 5,000 euros in taxes a year.” The Greens could then invest the difference in their socio-ecological transformation. With that the hall was reconciled. “

Has Siemens always been a haven of green ideology? Some can still remember other times. At least the Siemens Foundation, under its chairmen Armin Mohler and then Meier, was the think tank and the ideological stronghold of the New Right in the 80s and 90s, which worked diligently on a neo-fascist axis between the Front National of Marine Le Pen’s father and Republican chief SS-Schönhuber and held lectures with the whole right-winged spectrum of the New Right, Conservative Revolution and neofascist movement. In left-wing and Marxist literature, analyzes were often made between the connection between the respective capital groups and political movements and parties – from Sohn-Rethel to “Strategies of the German capital” or in all of Chinese, Soviet or GDR literature. Simplified, it was assigned schematically that the representatives of the old industries (coal / steel Stinnes / Krupp / Thyssen: I paid Hitler) supported right-wing and right-wing extremist parties and movements, the new industries (electrical / chemical Siemens / IG Farben) the democratic forces of the Weimar Republic. For this purpose, the corresponding bank connections, especially Deutsche Bank and Dresdner Bank, were examined then translated in a West-/East tendency and divide within each parts of the monopoly capital, typically not only for the Cold War and also to see a looming conspiracy of Ford and “The internaional Jew”, Lindberg and the British Clevden Set which was sponsored by the aggressive imperialsit anticommunist parts of the monopoly capital. According to this point of worldview: It was only with the world economic crisis in 1929 that the new industries switched to the right in Germany. In Britain and the USA you had the right marching on the street, side by side with the Kluk Klux Klan or in Britain fascist leader Sir Oswald Mosley, Unity Midford, while in both Anglosaxon countries Keynesiansim and a switch to the left occured. Not to communism, but in Republic worldview after the Mc Carthy era not “new communism”, but ” socialism”. So it will be interesting to see whether this scheme is still applicable today in the event of a renewed global economic crisis or financial crisis and whether the New Industries, above all Siemens, will turn around again and like Mohler will once turn to an axis AfD / Front National or whether the economic framework conditions and international constellations have changed as a result of globalization, new disruptive technologies and neoliberalism, especially since the question is whether the electronics and chemical industries will still be part of the new industries in the future.

Interesting in this context are the discussions as to whether, as a result of Trump’s America-First economic nationalism and criticism of globalism and the corona crisis, a decoupling of the global economy and the international supply chains and a restructuring will occur. The question of whether globalization is irreversible, partially reversible or restructurable, and the question of whether the globalized economic system is still sustainable and desirable, is also catalyzed by the climate crisis, Friday for Future and the delivery difficulties for pharmaceutical drugs and other sectors and goods .

However, now with Biden´s new policy which includes a Green New Deal,a Western New Silkroad and other infrastructure programs and industry policy as state regulations for a socio-ecological transformation of he old capitalism into a green sustainable, carbon free, climate neutral green stake holder capitalism with a human face,  a paradigm shift from neoliberalism to more Keynesiansim and state intervention, the Paris Climate Accord, the hoped-for New Green climate neutral hydrogen EU, a new economic model could emerge wich is supproted by many modern capita factions of the new industries like Joe Kaeser and Siemens while heavy industries, oil, gas  and so called old industries might try to prevent this development. However, a faction of big business and monopoly capital would have no problem to promise a genderneutral, climate neutral, diversified beyond races, some sort of racecless , social justice providing and digitalized new orld and paradise which could be profitable for them. A lot of CEOs at big corporations received a letter. It was from Larry Fink, the chairman and CEO of BlackRock, the world’s largest investment management firm, which means those CEOs probably paid attention. The letter calls on CEOs to curb their appetite for short-term profits and focus more on long-term growth and making a positive contribution to society. If Black Rock, Joe Kaeser, Goldman Sachs, Davos-WEF Schwab, Elon Musk, Rossmann,most parts of the Silicon Valley including the guys from the Burning Man festival get involved, this might create a powerful lobby. In the German newspaper Freitag, the author euphorically interprets Siemens CEO Joe Kaeser´s involvment with the Green Party as symptomatic for this hoped- for paradigm change:

„Let´s go to the promised land: Green capitalism When a Siemens boss calls up at the Green Party conference, the time has come: Society is going green, and Annalena Baerbock is leading it”

That capital and political interests are intertwinned, is no real news. But maybe more how they are intertwinned. A good analysis is the brochure “Capital interests in the “New Right” gives an in-sight in theoretical flagship of the Siemens AG the Siemens Foundation . Peter Kratz describes it as a forum for the reconstruction of the New Right under its chief managers Mohler and Meier. We repost an English translation which protrays the former Siemens AG and its Siemens Foundation as the leading think tank of the New Right in the 80s and 90s when it was a breeding laboratory for black- brown ideologists before it became under Joe Kaeser a breeding ground for black-green ideas.

Capital interests in the “New Right”

Author:  Peter Kratz

“The address, the first cavalier house to the right of the Nymphenburg Palace, is exclusive, and so are the events. Only those who are invited can enter the yellow-painted house with the pretty garden. The ritual is reminiscent of Anglo-Saxon customs. On fine summer days one could believe, let’s say, to be in Oxford: a black clad porter opens the door, a personal greeting, spacious business premises, green lawn, on which drinks are served, between the speeches a dignified buffet with its bowls and platters of the housekeeper and her helpers themselves are judged. And what is offered here in the form of lectures is also in Oxford format, ”the FAZ found on April 4, 1989. Not even close.

We are talking about the “Carl Friedrich von Siemens Foundation” in Munich, a refuge for the ideological formation of the “New Right”. The cosmopolitanism of the liberal Oxford home of the sciences, which bourgeois democracy requires, like the fish the water, is often sought in vain in this right-wing think tank. There were also green lawns and black-clad men on Obersalzberg, and neither does the squandering of the profits made by Siemens workers make up the liberalism, the flair of which Oxford dominates.

Rather, the Siemens Foundation was directed and shaped for decades by the head of the neo-fascist “New Right” in Germany, Armin Mohler, a declared enemy of bourgeois liberal thinking. His successor Heinrich Meier comes from the same school. Claus Leggewie dedicates his otherwise chatty book to the Siemens Foundation “The Spirit stands on the right. Excursions to the think tanks of the Wende ” just thirty lines. This is perhaps the most important institution of “new right” ideology formation and its networking with conservative politics and capital interests in the German-speaking area.

 On October 30, 1958, the foundation is established in Munich, at the headquarters of Siemens AG. It makes sense that it bears the name of the family member who ran the “Siemens House” during the Nazi era. Biological descendants of the company founder Werner von Siemens hold the highest honorary positions in the foundation, company managers of Siemens AG or other high-tech companies cooperating with it as well as representatives of technical and scientific know-how from the university / technical college form the 8-member board of trustees. Karlheinz Kaske, CEO of Siemens AG, is represented here personally with a seat and a vote, as is Heribald Närger, chairman of the supervisory board of the electronics and high-tech group. The family members Ernst von Siemens (as honorary chairman) and Peter von Siemens represent biological continuity on the Board of Trustees, the recently retired General Director of the NASA competition European Space Agency, Reimar Lüst, the General Director of the German Space Agency, Wolfgang Wild, and the President of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences, Arnulf Schlueter, sit here as advocates of the connection between state research funding and capital interests. The majority of the six-person foundation board are members of the boardrooms of Siemens AG. We are therefore not dealing with an insignificant organization on the fringes of the group, rather the top management keeps everything happening within the foundation firmly in hand.

In the foundation’s own academic lecture series and discussion groups, but now also as the host of institutions and student associations of the Munich University, the spiritual basis of a rightwinged worldview to the right of democracy has been developed and discussed since 1961. This does not prevent politicians like Klaus Töpfer, Peter Glotz or the chairman of the Committee for Research and Technology of the German Bundestag, the SPD politician Wolf-Michael Catenhusen, from making themselves available to the Siemens Foundation as references. The current managing director Heinrich Meier, born in 1953 and a shrewd high-flyer of the “New Right”, says 8,000 guests per year in the old cavalier house of the Wittelsbach kings: “The Munich scientific world meets with us”.

Armin Mohler’s life’s work

The content of the Carl Friedrich von Siemens Foundation was shaped by Armin Mohler, Deputy Managing Director of the Foundation from 1961 to 1964, and its Managing Director from 1964 to 1985. Today Mohler is considered a gray eminence of West German neo-fascism. No new right intellectual paper, from “Criticon” to “Junge Freiheit”, would like to do without Mohler. The man shows a remarkable continuity. While still a student, the “Salon Fascist” (Leggewie) Mohler volunteered for the SS to fight socialism in the first “European Army”, the Waffen-SS, and to make a German-led Europe the first world power. The SS, however, does not want intellectuals who at the end of their time assess themselves as follows: “I am not a person of deeds” . Despite the rejection, Mohler remained loyal to the Waffen-SS’s goal of creating a “Europe of Fatherlands” with Germany as Primus inter Pares.

 In the first few years after the victory over National Socialism, Mohler proceeded as if it were important to save what can be saved, to collect the intellectual foundations of fascism, to acquit the ideological pioneers of National Socialism of complicity in the Nazi crimes and to brand the Hitler line of German fascism, which was ultimately victorious in the factional disputes, as the bogus fascists, as a deviation from the pure doctrine of a broader “German movement”. He sees this pure doctrine represented by the fascist intellectuals who are summarized under the term “Conservative Revolution”.

 In Mohler’s dissertation “The Conservative Revolution in Germany 1918 – 1932. Outline of their Weltanschauungen”, one of the basic intellectual works of neo-fascism, which was published as a book in 1950, he naturally assumes the “interlocking of the ‘Conservative Revolution’ with the political events after 1933” and sees the practice of National Socialism as one of the “political attempts to realize” the “Conservative Revolution” (Mohler 1950, p. 11). Among the representatives of the “Conservative Revolution”, Mohler counts almost all intellectual pioneers of the Hitler regime and its crimes, including e.g. the Nazi chief ideologist Houston Stewart Chamberlain, the top Nazi racist Hans F.K. Günther, the Hitler putschist from the Feldherrnhalle Erich Ludendorff, co-founder of the right-wing extremist sect “Bund für Gotterknntnis – Ludendorffer”, or the fascist religious scholar Wilhelm Hauer, who led the sect “German Faith Movement” in the Nazi church struggle and together with Hans F.K. Günther published racist and religious writings.

For Mohler, zhey and others are the “Trotskyists” of National Socialism ”(p. 12). Regarding the question of the connection between the “Conservative Revolution” and the “Third Reich” and the “responsibility for National Socialism”, he categorically explains: “It cannot be our task to untangle this tangle and separate the main strands from the secondary strands” (p . 17). According to the self-assessment of the “conservative revolutionary” Armin Mohler, a “ball” was formed by the völkisch movement, the elitist young conservatives, the anti-capitalist national revolutionaries, the Bündische or the rural people movement (which he enumerated) with the plebeian-populist mass movement of National Socialism. Further: “The question that would arise here would be to what extent a theory can be held responsible for a realization that does not correspond to it” (p. 17f).

This ideological “tangle” despite the political and military collapse of European fascism on May 8, 1945, its moral self-discrediting through Auschwitz or the social policy of death (euthanasia), its socio-political loss of credibility (with war economy against unemployment, with business laeder against the democratic worker´s constitution) As early as 1950, Mohler set himself a life’s work to make it usable again for the interests of capital. The anti-democratic, elitist lofty goals of the “Conservative Revolution” in the broader sense are to become reusable as the ideology of domination of European capital despite the 25-year scandal of their political practice under fascism.

After being the private secretary of the “conservative revolutionary” Ernst Jünger for some time, Mohler was temporarily drawn to France, where he met the current head of European neo-fascism, Alain de Benoist, in the 1950s. He publishes in the Springer Group’s own daily newspaper “Die Welt”,, as well as in the “Bayernkurier” of the CSU and in the ostensibly Catholic newspaper “Christ und Welt” by the former “Conservative Revolutionary” and SS-Sturmbannführer Giselher Wirsing. Under the pseudonym “Michael Hintermwald” he writes in Gerhard Frey’s “Deutscher National und Soldatenzeitung”, the smear newspaper of neo-Nazism (6). In the 60s, Mohler, as a right-wing Gaullist, relies on a “Europeanization of Europe on an axis Paris – Bonn”  against the winners of the Second World War, the USA and the USSR, alike, the French “Nouvelle Droite” in the 70s Years will take up. For Leggewie (1987, p. 195), Mohler’s 1965 book “What the Germans fear” is the most outstanding “programmatic writing of a German Gaullism” and “Blueprint for Strauss’s ‘Design for Europe’”, the attempt to present this conception of the global leading power Europe without translating too great international upheavals into practical politics).

 At the same time, Mohler largely determined the work of the Siemens Foundation in terms of content from the beginning of the 1960s. The top managers of Siemens AG support this as the responsible bodies of the foundation bodies. Mohler never finds his way to the Christian conservatism of the Federal Republican restoration period, in which the Abs and Pferdmenges seek distance from the failed neo-pagan ideologues of fascism and seek refuge with Cardinal Frings . “I am a pagan through and through”, Mohler confesses in 1987 and means this politically: “Christianity is an enemy for me”. At the end of the 1970s, Mohler was the most ardent supporter of the neo-fascist ideology in France, which was reformed under the name “Nouvelle Droite” and was already popular in the conservative spectrum.

 Like most of the historical pioneers of fascism, they assume a Germano-Celtophile neo-paganism as the spiritual basis for a rebirth of Europe. In numerous books and articles, including in the elite right-wing extremist journal “Criticon”, Mohler makes known the ideas of Alain de Benoist, the head of the European “New Right”, whose discussion circles in France extend far into the Gaullist party. Mohler is involved in the “Thule Seminar”, the German offshoot of the “Nouvelle Droite” under Pierre Krebs (Kassel), whose name is based on the historical “Thule Society” from which the NSDAP emerged. Mohler also writes a foreword to the German-language edition of the Benoist book “( Cultural revolution from the right” Kulturrevolution von rechts”. The fact that, while working with Pierre Krebs, he came across someone who was photographed in a T-shirt of the militant neo-Nazi “Nationalist Front” Bielefeld and also appeared as a speaker at a training seminar did not seem to bother him: theory and practice tangled up.

In 1982 the extreme right-wing Sinus Verlag published a reader on “German identity”, the key concept of the “New Right”, which outwardly took the place of the racial concept of the old fascism. The book is edited by Caspar von Schrenck-Notzing and Armin Mohler; With the authors Hans-Joachim Arndt, Helmut Diwald and Robert Hepp, Mohler meets old friends (namely speakers) from the Siemens Foundation again, with Uwe Sauermann even a former federal chairman of the national revolutionary NPD student union NHB, with Robert Hepp one of the leading representatives racist “foreigners out!” – demands of the Federal Republic. Diwald co-wrote the new party program of the REPs in 1989 – here too the “ball”. The dynasty of the Schrenck-Notzings – one thinks so much about “clan” on the right – also links threads in other ways. The current head of the self-proclaimed elite family that can be traced back to 1214, Caspar von Schrenck-Notzing, is the editor of the “Criticon” magazine, which he founded in 1970 together with Mohler (Leggewie 1987, p. 197). Both conservative CDU / CSU right-wing extremists and neo-fascist representatives of the “New Right” write in it. Since the mid-1970s, “Criticon” has been involved in spreading the ideas of reforming fascism by Alain de Benoist and his colleagues. Mohler’s successor as Managing Director of the Siemens Foundation, Heinrich Meier, was allowed to publish here as a student. The son of WMF and major BASF shareholder Caspar, Alexander von Schrenck-Notzing, was a co-founder and outstanding head of the German Repubikaner (Repubican)´s ‘ university association RHV. He has an extraordinary pedigree: Caspar’s grandfather, Alexander’s great-grandfather, Albert von Schrenck-Notzing, was an outstanding occultist and “parapsychologist” at the beginning of this century, who was at home in the “tangle” of esotericism, occultism, secret bundles and folk movements . He had connections to the later wife of the Hitler putschist Erich Ludendorff, Mathilde Ludendorff, the chief ideologist of the anti-Semitic racist sect “Bund für Gotteserkenntnis-Ludendorffer”, which was banned by the interior ministers from the 1960s to the mid 1970s.

The “Munich Psychological Society” founded by Albert included the co-founders of the “Philosophy of Life” Ludwig Klages and Max Scheler, who were part of the environment of the “Conservative Revolution”. Albert’s close friends included the privy councilor Prof. L. Graetz; Schrenck-Notzing wanted to win him over to scientifically research and commercially exploit the infrared rays he had “parapsychologically” examined “for control and registration purposes” (A. von Schrenck-Notzing 1962, p. 24) – something that is no longer remote from the world , very solid project of an “occultist”.

The then occultsoteric folk “knot” developed and represented a holistic cosmic worldview, which was set as an alternative against any materialistic worldview, especially against socialism. From part of this scene, the occult, racist “Thule Society”, the NSDAP was co-founded in 1919 – another very tangible project (12). In 1965, grandson Caspar published the book “Character Wash. The American occupation in Germany and its consequences ”, in which he takes an anti-Enlightenment position against Western democracy and the principles of freedom, equality, solidarity,wjich were  foreign to German mysticism, German inwardness and German worldview, and after 1945 by the“ American Re-education ”destroyed the actual German national character, the“ national identity ”of the Germans.

It is the old story from the völkisch movement, used in the post-war era. Caspar von Schrenck-Notzing and the managing director of the Siemens Foundation Armin Mohler have been close political and ideological companions for a long time, as their long-term collaboration at “Criticon” or the aforementioned book “German Identity” show. Their common life’s work is the struggle against the ideological “West”, from Judaism to Christianity, liberalism to Marxism, in short: against all representatives of the idea of human equality.

The core of the “New Right”

 The neo-fascist worldview of the “New Right” promoted by them ties in with all parts of the Mohler “knot” of the “Conservative Revolution”. The main intellectual pioneers of National Socialism from the 1920s are the sources that have been referenced in the books and magazines of the “New Right” around Alain de Benoist or today’s German “Thule Seminar” since the 1970s. The two overview volumes published by the “Thule Seminar” “The immortal heritage. Alternatives to the principle of equality ”(with a contribution by Mohler and the cream of the French“ Nouvelle Droite ”, published in 1981 by the extreme right-wing Grabert publishing house) and“ Courage to identity. Alternatives to the Principle of Equality ”(published in 1988 by the Publishing House for Holistic Research and Culture, which is close to the Ludendorffer sect) contain the most comprehensive rendering of the updated and Europeanized fascist ideology available in German.

 In a nutshell, the ideology of the “New Right” is as follows: Based on an anti-Jewish and anti-Christian worldview criticism, the ideas of freedom-equality-solidarity are ultimately rejected as Middle Eastern Semitic and therefore un-European, Christianity as the legacy of Judaism (equality of all people before God), liberalism as the legacy of Christianity (equality of all people before the civil law) and rejected socialism with its basic demand for social equality of people as the inheritance of all three worldviews.

The principle of equality of people with its consequence of democracy is being imposed on Europe as a foreign worldview, especially by the USA, which since the victory over fascism has colonized Europe together with the USSR; Today the idea of equality serves the Japanese, but above all the US capital branded as the “main enemy” (Benoist), to sell its products in the same way everywhere on an egalitarian world market. The “Yalta system” (the distribution of power in Europe after the Second World War), like the “Yoke of Versailles” (after the First World War), was a means of economic oppression through cultural alienation. Europe must free itself from this colonization by “foreign powers” with a “cultural revolution from the right”, with a commitment to its supposedly “own” roots, values and views that are set against the supposedly “foreign” world views listed above.

 The ideological instrument for this is a European “liberation nationalism”, which has to create a new economic (and culturally supported) “greater area order” for Europe. Adapted to the development of the markets is the elevation of nationalism, the “national identity”, to the European level, which was already ideologically applied by H. St. Chamberlain. The “identity of Europe” corresponds to a worldview of neo-paganism, from which the principle of inequality of people with its consequence of the elite rule of less self-appointed leaders is derived. The line of tradition from allegedly primordial paganism to the principle of inequality is opposed to the above line of tradition of demands for equality as the “own” alternative: the two main books of the “Thule seminar” both have the subtitle “Alternatives to the principle of equality” and have the main title “ Inheritance ”or“ identity ”.

There are just as little universally valid human rights as “humanity”; rather, worldview, morality, law, social position, state constitution are determined in a folkish way, according to alleged peculiarities (“identities”). Northern Europe is understood as a folk-cultural unit in which there are only regionalist differences; it is the old postulate of the unity of the “Nordic race”. On the other hand, there are significant differences to non-northern European peoples. If democracy and human equality are good for Israel or the supposedly Jewish-ruled USA, then it is by no means good for Europe. Separate development of cultural-biological units (apartheid) is necessary to maintain the respective “identities”, a disintegration of the “identities” leads to decadence, to social and popular decline to psychosomatic illnesses due to “foreign infiltration”.

 Allegedly European natural myths, which can also be found in the New Age and which were passed off as “Indo-European” or “Indo-Aryan” ideology in the historical fascist ideology, justify a radical biologism in the new right ideology, in which “nature” with all its inequality between its elements and not about social agreements of equal people should even determine history. “Nature” is on the one hand mystified as divine, on the other hand it is pseudo-scientifically equated with the laws of nature which claim a cosmological universal validity and thus also validity in social relations. The belief in “fate”, given as old Germanic, that everything is predetermined and hardly allows any freedom of choice, certainly no permeability of society, shapes the idea of society and the state: a “community”, a holistic structure in which each individual has his or her given place has to prove itself (Mohler, Schrenck-Notzing or Kaske “of course” above, the Siemens workers “of course” below).

“Wholeness” as an allegedly original European concept, derived from “nature” and “cosmos” as a rule of order, is politicized and set against “atomization”, against the democratic concept of all equals. The new right state project is anti-democratic, a dictatorship of the supposedly knowing elite. Only the belief in “fate”, in “cosmic predetermination” and fitting oneself into one’s “identity” gives access to “salvation”, not the belief in a better hereafter or the concrete efforts for a better world now. The conditions for the distribution of individual and völkisch “fates” remain occult in the neo-fascist ideology, only accessible to those who know and at most about “German mysticism” and (not only recently) about an approach to “cosmic consciousness”. “Cosmos”, synonymous with “nature” as the all-appearance of the divine per se, serves two purposes here: the justification of the dominant structures found as “natural” and at the same time the reservation of the perspective through the alleged conditions and principles of these structures for a “ knowing ”, ruling elite.

 Any changeability of reality by the supposedly ignorant masses is therefore excluded in two ways. From a pantheism that can only be experienced mystically, which wants to recognize the cosmic divine in the same way in the phenomena of nature and history, i.e. also in every action of the “Aryan” man, the divinity of the (northern) European is inferred: “We act depsite God ”, says Sigrid Hunke, the outstanding German-speaking ideologist of the European New Right, who did her doctorate on the basis of the racist wisdom of the notorious SS organ“ Das Schwarze Korps ”and publishes today in the daily newspaper“ Die Welt ”. The (northern) European can do anything in this worldview. The so constructed “Faustian man”: on the one hand devoted to fate and nature-religious, on the other hand, mystically and scientifically exploring his different given possibilities and trying out his own divinity in each case for the increase of his benefit, finally challenges evolution itself.

Because: The identity of the European is divided in the same way in the ideological anchoring in the nature mystic-occult as in the technology he has just developed, both of which make the “Faustian man”. Europeans will only do justice to their identity if they use and exhaust the technology at its respective level of development, today especially high technology, astronomy / space research and genetic engineering. Others who allegedly have a different “identity” would not be able to benefit from the technology. In principle, this ideological basis of fascism is already at the beginning of the 20th century by ideologues like Paul de Lagarde (only seemingly critical of romantic civilization) or Houston Stewart Chamberlain (who was just as enthusiastic about the technical advances of European civilization as he was by the message of Goethe- ” Faust ”and Goethe’s natural religious approaches) fully elaborated.

In the magazine “Nouvelle Ecole”, of which he is editor-in-chief, Alain de Benoist even explicitly refers to Chamberlain (spring 1979 edition), whom he praises profusely: “All gifts of intelligence, an infallible insight, a judgment that was never wrong , and an unrivaled honesty ”. The Nazis then adopt Chamberlain as their main thought leader and “seer/visionary of the Third Reich”. In particular, the ideological connection of romanticist criticism of civilization with (technological) modernization efforts, as historical fascism then also put into practice politically, was made by representatives of the “Conservative Revolution”, which is precisely why they gave themselves this name.

 The “New Right” of the 70s / 80s only brings updates in comparison to Chamberlain’s main work “The Foundations of the 19th Century” (1899), a basic work of historical fascism, which adapts the old ideology to the new problems and the goals of the elite adapt at the end of the 20th century. So it does the same job for the 1990s that the representatives of the “Conservative Revolution” did for the 1920s. Four quotes from the “Thule Seminar” book “Courage for Identity”, which illustrate the new “we” feeling on a European level and clarify its economic objectives, are given: “It is … important, especially since our gods are now in the cosmos are determined to continue this European technoscientific culture with the conquest of space, which for Europeans is also the key to their strategic and military independence ”(p. 250).

“The European man who has become Faustian transcends through science and technology what all civilizations – including Judao Christianity – did not dare to violate, namely the manifest order of nature” (p. 245). “Since the virtual is not ‘history’, but techno-science, the extension of natural evolution, it would then be conceivable that the Europeans, distinguishing themselves from the other peoples, would show the divine daring to use technology – their technology use to carry out an increasing self-modification what Nietzsche metaphorically called the march to the superman? ”(p. 256). “What is it about? To the fact that the peoples who take the future techno-science firmly in hand, will give themselves the possibility of a self-mutation, especially through the mastery of genetics and the associated sciences, with all the dangers, but also with all the possibilities that includes this bet or risk. Instead of being unifying and leveling, techno-science will appear to the peoples who dare to devote themselves to it as the most important means of asserting and shaping their differences from the others – it will in a sense replace the differentiating logic of natural evolution ”(p . 257). This is what Guillaume Faye writes, number two in the French “Nouvelle Droite” behind Alain de Benoist.

 If this vision of inflating Europeans into a new master race with the help of genetic engineering appears to be a fantastic exaggeration, as fascist science fiction, the reference of the “New Right” to high-tech and genetic engineering makes just as much sense for EU capital as the attack on the principle of equality: With high technology – in various ways, from military technology to the stranglehold of economic competition to extortionate withholding of the raw material “chip” – the claim of the South to equal participation in the prosperity of the North is fought off. The “Nouvelle Droite” was able to gain a great influence on the right-wing conservative intelligentsia in France and finally even send people around them as ministers to the Gaullist cabinet of Chirac.

Populist simplifications lifted Le Pen and his neo-fascist party Front National, with which Schönhuber and his REP enjoyed working together for a while, to a stable political position. French anti-fascism has managed through intensive work to highlight the fascist nature of the “Nouvelle Droite” and to brand Le Pen, whose second “e” often appears as a swastika in spray slogans, for what it actually is: a modernized Nazi option of capital. In 1985 Armin Mohler published a documentary entitled “Twenty-five Years of the Carl Friedrich von Siemens Foundation”, which contains a list of the Foundation’s events since it was founded. From the contents it can be concluded that the Siemens Foundation had all components of the “Faustian man” represented and treated since the beginning of the 1960s, that the latest scientific results and views were always checked for their usefulness for a reform of the old right ideology. This tendency was most evident in the 1970s and 1980s, when the “New Right” began to flourish.

Abstracted from the respective concrete points of contact and brought to the level of the essential, Mohler’s list appears like a modern cross-section through the themes of Chamberlain’s “Foundations of the 19th Century”. In the Siemens Foundation there is a discussion of elite concepts, the presentation of neo-pagan “salvation” paths such as occultism, “parapsychology”, European primeval myths, Goethe exegeses or anthroposophy , there are representations of “conservative revolutionaries” like Oswald Spengler. As if Mohler didn’t want to leave any doubts, he organized an event on the historic “Thule Society”. Biologistic series of events (eg “Nature and History”) should scientifically secure the social unequal treatment of people, lecture titles such as “The biological basis of our social behavior”, “The illusion of social justice” or “Rule and serve – equality and inequality” show what is intended. Considerations on a holistic, cosmic “ecological ethic” derived from nature, where the struggle for existence reigns, a series of lectures on “fate” can be found as well as the latest scientific results, astronomy and high-tech space research, which are interesting for an electronics company

Basics of “cosmic consciousness”, a series on genetic engineering, ethnic considerations and tribal history, the conception of the “Europe of the Fatherlands”, the European-American conflict, “occidental” art (certainly also in Chamberlain’s sense) or reflections on the “emergency”, the dictatorial state of emergency in the sense of the Nazi crown lawyer Carl Schmitt, as whose supporter Mohler likes to present himself. Populist translations of fascist intellectual theory such as the subject of the alleged extinction of the Germans are also not missing.

 Towards the end, the list of speakers seems to antifascists more and more like a little “Who’s Who” of the “New Right” in the 80s / 90s. The following appear at the Siemens Foundation – often several times: Karl Steinbuch, Otto Habsburg, Konrad Lorenz, I. Eibl-Eibesfeld, Helmut Diwald (of all people, he was the “emergency”!), Paul Carell, (an author of apologetic books about the battles of the German Wehrmacht in World War II, which are touted by right-wing extremist book services; in truth Carell bears the name Karl Paul Schmidt and before 1945 was SS-Untersturmbannführer and propaganda chief of the Nazi Foreign Minister and war criminal Ribbentrop; Carell also speaks about the “emergency”), Heinz-Dietrich Ortlieb (a South Africa racist who often writes in the neo-fascist magazine “MUT” of the former NPD Bundestag candidate Bernhard Wintzek; he spoke at Siemens on the subject of “decolonization as an emergency as an  example Black Africa ”), the evangelical theologian Helmut Thielicke, who is far to the right (he publishes in the same publisher who also has a flattering book published about the right-wing extremist sect “German Unitarian Religious Community” , Peter Berglar from the Humboldt Society and Opus Dei, of all people about Wilhelm von Humboldt, Bodo Scheurig (a journalist from the national-revolutionary right-wing neutralist environment, cf. Note 19), Hermann Lübbe, Günter Bartsch (from the national revolutionary scene), the Carl Schmitt apologist Julien Freund (on the fascist thought leader Georges Sorel), Hans-Jürgen Eysenck (who wrote a foreword in the “Thule Seminar” in 1981 / Grabert’s book “Das Immortliche Erbe”, in which Mohler also published), the Schönhuber advisor Bernhard Willms, Robert Hepp, Christa Meves, Peter Hofstätter (who in 1941 wanted to rationalize the selection of Jews with the then new psychological statistical methods), Ernst Nolte ( who began the historians’ dispute here as early as 1980), Hans Jürgen Syberberg, who is now being praised again by the “New Right” for his fascistophile statements, d he Carl Schmitt apologist Helmut Quaritsch, the German national political scientist Hans-Joachim Arndt, etc.

In 1980 the Siemens Foundation organized a series of events entitled “New Anthropology”; the allusion to the right-wing extremist magazine of the same name by the well-known Hamburg lawyer Jürgen Rieger, on whose “scientific advisory board” Alain de Benoist also sits, is apparently intentional. In 1989 Helmut Diwald was involved in drafting the REP’s party program. Konrad Lorenz and his student Eibl-Eibesfeld are the modern, apparently unsuspicious sources for the biologism of Alain de Benoist and the entire “racist international”, because the Nazi racist Hans F.K. Günther can no longer quote so openly. Günter Bartsch is the outstanding insider expert on the national revolutionary scene of the 1970s and 1980s in the Federal Republic. Julien Freund is a pioneer of the New Right and writes, for example, in the “Thule Seminar” magazine “Elements” with Pierre Krebs, Benoist, the long-time vice and honorary president of the “German Unitarians” Sigrid Hunke or Guillaume Faye (J. Freund about Carl Schmitt; Benoist on the 1920s “young conservatives” Moeller van den Bruck, Hunke on neo-paganism, etc.). In the journal “Der Staat””The State”, co-edited by Quaritsch, Freund explains the possibilities of an amnesty for Nazi criminals as “a political and not an ethical act, just like bringing soldiers into combat”, as the “price for the normal state” (p . 187/189) and as a “state of emergency” in the sense of Schmitt. For example, Quaritsch himself praised Julien Freund in his magazine on the occasion of a book review of the “Festive present for  Carl Schmitt for his 80th birthday”; On the occasion, he commented on Schmitt’s lecture “Large-scale international law with a prohibition of intervention for non-spatial powers”, terms from the time of the Nazi World War, which, for example, the Europe program of the NPD takes up again today, but mainly in the new Eastern fantasies of the German-run EU capital find their current, material equivalent.

 Individual events organized by the Siemens Foundation are worth taking a closer look at. Quaritsch, who at the beginning of the 1970s reorganized the scientific services of the German Bundestag as ministerial director and today trains future senior civil servants as professor for public law at the University of Administrative Sciences Speyer, aroused excitement in 1981 with his Siemens foundation lecture “Immigration country Federal Republic of Germany? – Current reform issues of the law on foreigners ”caused a stir. He did not like the fact that the foreign fellow citizens in the Federal Republic “will continue to multiply despite the recruitment ban”, that is, biologically. The German asylum law has “invited to abuse” (p. 47 of his published lecture). “If the problem of fake asylum seekers could perhaps still be managed more or less by making the conditions of residence more difficult, e.g. by refusing the residence permit, then there is no limit to natural increase; the generative reproduction rate, as economists probably call it, is higher among foreigners than among Germans ”. This is the “German suicide program of the last 15 years” (p. 48), which can only be stopped “by a massive exodus” of foreigners and their families.

 Quaritsch thinks in the Nazi category of “living space” when he explains: “The Germans lost a third of their settlement area not long ago. It would be very strange if such a loss of space did not make people particularly sensitive to indirect land grabbing by groups of immigrants who fought off acculturation as an imposition and impairment of national identity, as if they had moved to an abandoned country ”(p. 75). One can hardly connect more clearly to the ideology of the master people.

 The Carl Schmitt supporter Quaritsch also gives the reasons for his rejection of foreigners: The southerners have no relationship with the state. “Integration would therefore be very difficult, for example, if the Italian or Greek immigrants also practiced their national sport, tax evasion, in Germany” (p. 77). He prefers to keep quiet about the tax compliance of Flick, Siemens, etc. Instead, he makes it clear once again what he is mainly interested in with his 1981 preliminary considerations for a new law on foreigners. A right to vote for non-Germans must be prevented in any case, because: “Most of the foreigners in the Federal Republic belong to the so-called lower class … But you don’t need to be a good electoral sociologist to be able to predict the voting behavior of members of the lower class. They choose parties that traditionally represent the interests of the workers, especially the lower class, that is, socialists and communists ”(p. 51) – which Siemens, however, cannot be interested in.

Quaritsch’s spiritual brother Julien Freund spoke out in front of the Siemens Foundation in 1975 about the fascist “Conservative Revolutionary” Georges Sorel, who today provides an intellectual basis for the “Nouvelle Droite” around Alain de Benoist and also from the German “Thule Seminar” Reading is recommended. Freund: “Strictly speaking, according to Georges Sorel, democracy is that form of government that accelerates the process of decay of a culture” (p. 19). Sorel rejects democracy because of its principle of equality, which leads to decadence; here it is not the elite that rule, but mediocrity, here the further upswing of the people is inhibited, they are kept from “every high deed” (p. 21). Sorel, who ties in with the philosophy of life, especially Henri Bergson (17), is a “theoretician of myth”; the myth (18) is “basically identical to the attitudes of a group” (p. 25), in modern terms: the “national identity”, the basic term “new right” ideology, which takes the place of “race” and “racial hygiene ”. Combined with völkisch thinking and Sorel’s theory of violence, the result is a useful mixture for an ideology that justifies Carl Schmitt’s “state of emergency”, the dictatorship of fascist terror against the political “enemy”.

 Julien Freund made no secret of the place where the old new idol of right-wing extremism was looking for the realization of his ideas: “He looked for them in Action Francaise (19), in Bolshevism and in Fascism” (p. 35), whereby like the German national revolutionary Ernst Niekisch (20), what fascinated him about Bolshevism was the brutality of the “red terror”, not the idea of social equality. In Freund’s lecture published by the Siemens Foundation, Armin Mohler spent almost as long talking about the life and writings of Sorel. Frederic Durand, formerly a member of the French resistance movement against the Nazi occupation, imperceptibly manages the transition to the well-known Nordic myth in 1978. His lecture on “Nordic Studies” appears scientific, but has a special function in the ranks of the foundation lectures, especially because its author seems so unsuspicious of fascism. Durand finds “three general denominators” in Nordic literature, which are, however, already known as the basic positions of the ideology of fascism and the “New Right”: “Nature and a feeling for nature, the individual and society” (p. 35). “Nature as fate – this theme could be traced through centuries of Scandinavian literature” (p. 39). In the following he talks about the supposedly specific Scandinavian soul (which was formerly called “Germanic” or “Nordic”), whose religiosity is characterized by paganism, pantheism, “approach to Indian wisdom” and “East Asian wisdom” (p. 43; cf. the New Age relationship) and aims at “a hard-working, pious and happy life in harmony with God and nature” (ibid.). Mohler has attached a bibliography on Nordic studies to the publication of the lecture, in which numerous German publications from the time of National Socialism are listed.

Of course, Peter Glotz, the failed federal manager of the SPD with a pronounced preference for everything elitist, should not be missing in this scene. In 1985 he spoke at the foundation’s “Environmental Policy Evenings” on the subject of “People and Animals”. His co-referee Benno Hess, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Nutritional Physiology and Vice President of the Max Planck Society, previously, based on Goethe, discusses the biological (organic-cosmic) worldview that prevails in the fascist as well as in the New Age. Ideology is represented equally. Glotz then proceeds in a draw. On the one hand, he turns against the Marxist philosopher Georg Lukacs, “who wanted to interpret the entire romantic movement as the destruction of reason and as a prelude to Hitler’s barbarism” (p. 43); On the other hand, however, he also opposes today’s demands, which are partly rational-ethical, partly romantic-critical of civilization, for a restriction of the “Faustian man” when he says: “At the same time, however, I am against the widespread tendency to ethically bind and in particular basic research control ”(p. 45).

With this he is undoubtedly closer to the “Faustian” new right Faye (cf. the above quotations) than to the draft laws of his own parliamentary group, e.g. on genetic engineering, but in any case very close to the interests of biotech, high-tech, atomic-tech EU capital. Links between science, capital interests and “new right” politics In 1986 the astronomer Hans Elsässer spoke about “The New Astronomy” and thus – like Durand, appears purely scientifically – the arc to the “cosmic worldview” of historical fascism and the “New Right” such as the New Age. It is a contribution to the “Lecture series on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the Max Planck Society”, which the Siemens Foundation organized in 1986 together with the Max Planck Society.

The natural scientist Elsässer only mentions a non-scientific word once: “Fascination” of the cosmos (p. 56). Nevertheless, the whole event is designed to make clear the intimate connection between the “Siemens House” (and its economic interests) and the well-known “New World View”. Both Reimar Lüst, also Director General of the European Space Agency (and thus a key figure in EU capital on the move into space) and member of the Board of Trustees of the Siemens Foundation, and Heinz Staab, President of the Max Planck Society, remember in Short lectures at the same event on old traditions of the “New World View”.

First of all, Staab thanks the right-wing extremist Armin Mohler “for the fact that you took up the initiative (for the evening, d.V.) so willingly and continued to pursue it” (p. 8). He then recalls the history of the Max Planck Society, which from 1911 was supposed to promote German science as the “Kaiser Wilhelm Society” for the benefit of German capital. Scientists need ideological meaning for their actions and this name said it all: Kaiser Wilhelm was one of the most ardent readers of the outstanding fascist ideologist Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who at the turn of the century had already connected the content of the rather romanticist, civilization-critical völkisch movement with the modernization efforts of capital .

 Wilhelm II had founded a Chamberlain reading group and conducted a lively correspondence with the later NSDAP chief ideologist. Staab in front of the Siemens Foundation: “The Siemens company was also involved in the establishment of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society: Among the first 191 members of the society and its most prominent donors who, within three years, from private initiative, were responsible for the time raised a huge sum of around 12 million marks belonged to Wilhelm von Siemens and his brother-in-law, Professor Carl Harries. Wilhelm von Siemens was also one of the first ten senators who were elected to the constituent senate of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society 75 years ago by the founding assembly and who received their confirmation from Kaiser Wilhelm II.

His brother Carl Friedrich von Siemens, who gave this foundation its name, became a senator in 1937 and shortly afterwards became second vice-president of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society … Siemens has also had close ties to the Max Planck Society since it was founded 40 years ago; For example, through the membership of all CEOs in the Senate of the Max Planck Society in those years. 75 years of the Kaiser Wilhelm / Max Planck Society are also 75 years of close contact with the Siemens family and company ”(p. 8ff) – and with the fascist worldview

This is not the place to go into the close relationship between the development of fascist ideology, especially in Chamberlain, the 70 years later development of New Age ideology and the crisis in the worldview of physics at the beginning of the 20th century . Reimar Lüst insists on emphasizing in front of the Siemens Foundation the close relationship between the shattering of the old worldview by the new physics in Germany at that time and the work of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society. On Werner Heisenberg’s philosophical writings, for example “Die Einheit des Naturwissenschaftlichen Weltbildes”, Leipzig 1942, the “New Right” relies today in the pseudo-scientific justification of its view of the world (cf. eg Krebs 1988, p. 388, Hunke 1969, p. 489, p. 536). Heisenberg, who researched Hitler’s atomic bomb, “deserves the credit of having carried out astronomical research in the Max Planck Society in 1947 through the establishment of a special astrophysics department,” said Lüst in front of the Siemens Foundation in 1986 (p. 18).

With the “New Right” today, as it was with Chamberlain for example (cf. his “Kant” book), the pseudoscientific reference to scientific, in particular astrophysical research to “safeguard” the fascist ideology is popular. Not only that, in addition to a main source like Heisenberg, Max Planck himself has to serve for many things today: Hunke (1969), for example, cites him several times as a key witness. Even in the renowned Max Planck Society itself, people are not afraid to make contacts. Theodor Schweisfurth works at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg, another but no less useful branch of science, who in 1990 published the book “Thoughts on Greater Germany” together with Alain de Benoist and a REP national revolutionary . Published by the same publisher and advertised in the same brochure: “Dance of the Elements. Cult and Rite of the Pagan Community ”, a New Age book on the fascist worldview; Content: “Being Pagan…, Meditation, Runes, Man und Cosmos” etc. Alain de Benoist had already published the book “Being Pagan for a New Beginning” in the early 80s as a publication of the “Thule Seminar” in the right-wing extremist Grabert Verlag based on Hunke (1969).

 SPD member Schweisfurth was not only represented several times as an author in the magazine “Die Neue Gesellschaft” (editor-in-chief: Peter Glotz), where he propagated his concept of reunification, but also appeared at the “North German Forum”, one in Constitutional Protection Report 1986 by the Federal Minister of the Interior classified as right-wing extremist, organized by the “Bund Heimattreuer Jugend”; He published the “Memorandum of Peace Treaty, German Confederation, European Security System”, which was signed by well-known right-wing extremists such as Wolf Schenke or Hubertus Mynarek  and which had partly been published in advance in the national revolutionary magazine “We ourselves” of the later Koblenz REP functionary Siegfried Bublies . Schweisfurth was celebrated in November 1989 in the BILD newspaper as the father of the idea of a confederation FRG GDR, which at the time was traded as a possible option for reunification and had already been propagated in the neo-fascism of the 50s / 60s. The underlying concept of a complete reorganization of Europe in the interest of a German European center, which Kaiser Wilhelm and German Fascism, with the support of the “Siemens House”, tried twice in vain in a warlike way – and for which Peter Glotz recently used the term “Zwischeneuropa” of the “Conservative Revolutionary” and later SS-Sturmbannführer Giselher Wirsing, still later a supporter of Mohler, who tried to revive it (cf. Kratz 1990c) – the German-run EU capital is now very close. Confederation concepts as an aid to smash the “Yalta system” of the victors over fascism no longer need the “New Right” and their interested parties today.

 As part of the “Lecture series on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the Max Planck Society”, the 1986 Nobel Prize winner Manfred Eigen, Director at the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, speaks about “Conservative and Evolutionary Biotechnology” in front of the Siemens Foundation. . In keeping with the – albeit clearly fascist – genetic engineering science fiction of Guillaume Faye, Eigen wrote in the announcement of his lecture: “While conservative genetic engineering has already found its way into practice, evolutionary genetic engineering is still a vision of the future, the basics of which are nonetheless in laboratory experiments are manifest. Both technologies will enable people to artificially manufacturec omplex products, which otherwise only arise in nature, to be artificially manufactured, but that also means to better adapt artifacts to nature ”. Here the researcher’s will to touch “revealed nature” in the Fayes sense as well as the treacherous term “product”, which refers to the intended use of the genetic engineering monster as a commodity, should be emphasized.

“My friend Franz Schönhuber”

Just like Le Pen the populist of the “Nouvelle Droite”, the REP boss Franz Schönhuber is the populist of its German branch, the “New Right”. Armin Mohler is one of Schönhuber’s advisors, he has been “there” from the very beginning. In his interview with Leggewie (1987, p. 201), Mohler describes the REP chairman as his friend. On 26./27. November 1983 founded the party “The Republicans” in Munich. On December 7, 1983, a body called the “Deutschlandrat” was founded, in which extremist intellectuals reduced the ideology of the New Right to a level that could be used and chosen for mass politics. Participants: Franz Schönhuber, Armin Mohler, Hellmut Diwald, Hans-Joachim Arndt, Robert Hepp, Bernhard Willms and Wolfgang Seiffert, almost all speakers from the Siemens Foundation. Their  call published in “Criticon” demands: “We want to be a normal nation again”. The name “Deutschlandrat” was taken over from an institution of the national revolutionary right-wing neutralist groups of the 50s / 60s around the publicist Wolf Schenke, like many of his fellow campaigners at the time, a former HJ / SA functionary, that is, a member of the “conservative revolutionary” wing within the NSDAP Active in the 50s and 60s and in the 80s with the Niekisch and Strasser wings of German fascism for a reunited, militarily strong, non-aligned Germany as its own, euro-hegemonic bloc (cf. Kratz 1990a).

 In Schrenck-Notzing’s “Criticon”, Mohler (November / December 1981, p. 284) writes a review of the Schönhuber Waffen SS book “I was there”(“Ich war dabei”). Mohler: “This book is a milestone in the checkered history of the German coming to terms with the past” because Schönhuber “does not portray his life in the Third Reich as a secret resistance or as an impotent experience of evil, but as an all in all joyful participation. … It is, of course, not an apology for the Third Reich, but an admission that this period, like any other, contained good and bad right next to each other, and not just on the fringes, but also in the middle of the Nazi organizations. … A book from which one learns more about the reality of the Third Reich than from whole piles of coping literature. … With ‘republican’ vigor, he (Schönhuber, d.V.) experiences the Third Reich as the first German form of society in which one could rise from the class of the ordinary people, if only one was talented and aware of achievement. … It is also characteristic that the specific Nazi utopia, that of a second revolution ’to be carried out after the victory, haunts Schönhuber’s memory”. With the last sentence Mohler alludes to the utopia of the “conservative revolutionaries” in the broader sense.

Nobody is surprised anymore that the head of the REP’s regional commission for economics in Berlin, W. Bogen, was also deputy chairman of the Berlin electrical industry. Siemens had the largest electrical company in West Berlin. On the militant side, too, today’s ideologues of the “New Right” have practically “tangled up”. Pierre Krebs, head of the Kassel “Thule Seminar”, as a speaker at the “Nationalist Front” (NF) in Bielefeld is just one example. If you want to become a member of the secret inner circle of the “Thule seminar”, you have to be able to “refer to relevant militancy for the THULESEMINAR”, as it is called in an internal circular of the Kassel “neurechte” think tank. Mohler unabashedly even presents himself as an admirer of the neo-Nazi terrorist Manfred Roeder (Leggewie 1987, p. 202).

The “new” Siemens Foundation: Heinrich Meier continues Mohler’s tradition

 Heinrich Meier has been managing director of the Siemens Foundation since August 1, 1985. Meier is one of the most intellectually advanced representatives of the “New Right”, born in 1953, a real high-flyer, and tries to avoid Mohler’s mistake of too clearly taking sides with the extreme right. He even publicly keeps a cautious distance from Mohler when he emphasizes that individual speakers from the “old” Siemens Foundation no longer appear under his responsibility. “Mohler dealt with coming to terms with the past”, says Maier, “I see into the future”, which does not have to be mutually exclusive. With his anti-egalitarian interpretation of Rousseau, Meier succeeded in one of the greatest coups of the “new right” in the 1980s. In the new edition of Rousseau’s work “Discourse on Inequality” by Meier, which is now generally valued as indispensable for dealing with Rousseau’s political philosophy because of the unique scientific nature of the text reproduction, the latter brushes the ideas of the great enlightener, preacher of the equality of people and thought leader French revolution against the grain: Meier saves Rousseau for the “New Right” by reinterpreting his main work, one of the greatest writings of egalitarianism, into an apology for the inequality of people. In his “introductory essay” Meier criticizes that Rousseau’s writing has always “been read as a discourse against inequality” (p. XXI).

Rousseau, who fundamentally assumed the natural inequality of human beings, allegedly himself pointed out that only a selected few had understood this writing, “those who know how to understand”, as Meier quotes Rousseau (p. XXII). Meier hangs his contra-interpretation on this small half-sentence, further claims that Rousseau made use of “the deliberately veiled representation” (p. XXIII); his writing shows an “exoteric-esoteric ambiguity” (26) (p. XXV), which the author allegedly chose to speak openly to the many egalitarians (exoteric), but to the few of a knowing elite in secret (esoteric) to say the opposite. Above all, Meier wants Rousseau to “read between the lines” (p. XXX), which, however, must first be “practiced” (p. XLVII). In a sense, he wants to turn the parts of the pages that remained white when first printed in 1755, during Rousseau’s lifetime, against the author’s previous political influence. Rousseau supposedly recognized “the natural inequalities among people”, namely “of the individuals as well as the ethnic groups, the sexes as well as the age” (p. LVII), but this is “hardly recognizable for the ‘common reader’” (p. LVIII). Meier in his “introductory essay”: “What is good for Socrates is by no means good for Athens or for humanity” (p. LXXIII); “The successful existence of a Hottentot differs from that of a Spartan, that of a Genevan from that of an‘ Orang Utan ‘”(S. LXXVI); everyone has their own identity, their “being with oneself” (ibid.) – this time the “new right” ethnopluralism is derived from Rousseau, its consequence, apartheid or antiquated: racial hygiene remains the same. In Meier’s justification of the contra-interpretation, the censorship of the Ancien regime plays a role, because of which Rousseau had to choose the “veiled representation”: “As long as there are philosophers who communicate their philosophy publicly, as long as they use the exoteric-esoteric mode of representation when it comes to protecting oneself, the person as well as the thing, against the intolerance of the society in which they live and in which they develop their philosophy ”(p. XXVII).

 Then, of course, one would like to counter Meier, Rousseau would not have had to hide his supposedly intended praise of the “Droit a la Difference” (27) “esoterically” under the rule of the last absolutist king of France, but rather his open, “exoteric” remarks that are directed against this inequality of people. For Meier, however, it seems to be less about the logic of the argument, for him it is primarily a matter of revealing the inequality of people that is supposedly “esoterically” contained in it through a new translation and new interpretation of the “discourse on inequality” and to make the contra-interpretation plausible through countless footnotes, source references and citing the editor’s seemingly inexhaustible detailed knowledge of Rousseau. As absurd as Meier’s concerns may appear, the accessible reviews of his Rousseau edition ignore it in favor of the recognition of the (albeit “new right” interested) scientific approach.Thanks to Meier, the “New Right” can take action today with Rousseau against the left’s demands for equality.

 This masterpiece of “new right” theory building, with which Meier alone would have earned Mohler’s successor as head of the Siemens Foundation, is far from over. As a student in 1976, Meier published a long article in Schrenck-Notzings and Mohler’s “Criticon” about Konrad Lorenz, a popular thought leader of the “New Right” (see cheap 1981) and until the end of 1973 director of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Physiology. Meier reveals himself to anti-fascists as a racist with Nazi ties, who Mohler’s “conservative-revolutionary” references to Nazi racists like Hans F.K. Günther or Wilhelm Hauer hardly seems to be inferior: Michael Billig (1981, pp. 60 ff and 145 ff) emphasizes in one of the first critical studies of the theoretical work of the “New Right” in particular the racist work Konrad Lorenz from 1943 “The innate formsof  possible experience ”, in which Lorenz emphasized the“ value of Purebredness ”with reference to the Nazi geneticist Eugen Fischer. Lorenz took the view here, so Billig, “that the only way out of genetic decay is a conscious, scientifically supported race policy” (Billig 1981, p. 60f).

 Cheap also cites an article by Lorenz from 1940 (“Disturbances of Species Behavior Caused by Domestication”), in which he praised the Nazi racial policy with the sentence: “The racial idea as the basis of our form of government already has an infinite amount in this direction accomplished ”(ibid.) (28). In 1976, Meier added an annotated bibliography to his “Criticon author’s portrait” by Lorenz, in which he praised the 1943 essay: “One of the most important works by Lorenz … so far no republication!” and just as uncritically commented on the 1940 essay with the Nazi confession: “Contains, among other things, early cultural criticism” (29). A distancing from the Nazi-racist content of these Lorenz articles  is not Meier´s will. Instead, in this “Criticon” article he uncritically acknowledges Lorenz and his biologism, which transferred findings from animal behavior research into human society and justified aggressive behavior towards fellow human beings as well as social inequality as supposedly natural.

 Heinrich Meier, who was a student of philosophy, political science and sociology in Freiburg at the time, laments in “Criticon” “the reluctance of the social sciences and philosophy to deal with the consequences of comparative behavioral research and to take up its diverse food for thought” (p. 204). “The scope of evolutionary research, genetics and ethology for the world and the image of man” is “often not recognized … and the results of these sciences” are “neglected precisely where they could be of greatest importance” (p. 206 f) . “Biological roots of ethical norms (such as incest taboo), genetic dispositions for social hierarchy, territoriality are documented”, says Meier (p. 209) and thus emphasizes “new right” racists such as Eysenck or Jensen on integral concepts of the ” New rights ”such as the alleged“ territorial instinct ”(cf. Koelschtzky 1986, p. 22 ff) or the allegedly racially bound inheritance of social inequality, as advocated by Jensen with his intelligence-inheritance hypothesis.

The egalitarianism of liberalism and Marxism, according to Meier, has weakened the previously allegedly genetically bound “ethical (!) and aesthetic sense of value” and not only led to “alienation from nature”, but also “the growing intolerance of pain” (e.g. against the working conditions on the Siemens assembly lines?), “Effeminacy, boredom, the waning of the ability to have strong feelings” (patriotism up to “heroic death”?) (P. 210). The writings of Lorenz, in particular “The Back of the Mirror” and also his “Eight Deadly Sins of Civilized Mankind” from 1971 – where Lorenz considered “that all people are potentially equal (!)” as a “lie” of the “rulers of America , China and the Soviet Union ” (quoted in ibid.) – contain the way out in Meier’s opinion:” The effect of Lorenz’s work on anthropology, sociology, philosophy and political theory (!) … is far more future possibility , for present reality ”(p. 204).

Cheap (1981, p. 14 ff) emphasizes the intensive recourse of the “Nouvelle Droite” to Alain de Benoist on Lorenz and quotes Benoist from his magazine “Nouvelle Ecole” (winter 1974/75) that it is “significant that a scientist as Konrad Lorenz did not hesitate to work … as a philosopher and also as a moralist. His last works, The eight deadly sins of civilized humanity ’and The back of the mirror’, testify to this new inspiration ”(quoted in Billig, p. 146). Cheap (p. 147) quotes an exclusive interview that Benoist conducted with Lorenz for the “Nouvelle Ecole” in the winter of 1974/75, in which Lorenz clearly stated: “It is not true that we are all the same”. Cheap about this interview: “He (Lorenz, dV) further claimed that“ the inequality of people is one of the foundations and one of the conditions of the entire culture … This inequality is based on a difference in skills Having expressed differences between the individuals, Lorenz stated simply and without appropriate evidence that “it is the same with the racial groups” ”(ibid.). The racial hygienist Lorenz is not only the winner of the “Golden Humboldt Medal” of the Humboldt Society (see the article in this volume), but also – like Sigrid Hunke – the winner of the “Schiller Prize” of the right-wing extremist “German Cultural Work of the European Spirit” (DKEG) of the co-founder of the sect “German Unitarian Relifious Society  eV” and former SA poet Herbert Böhme.

The Mohler “knot” is also effective with Meier. The “special lecture series” he designed for the Siemens Foundation in 1986 “The Challenge of Evolutionary Biology” is an example of how the old tradition continues to have an effect in the Foundation (29a). With this series, the new managing director ties in just as seamlessly with his “Criticon” article from 1976 as with the anti-legal biologism of the “New Right”. This is already clear from the graphic that adorns the foundation’s brochure for the lecture series: The graphic artist Pierre-Yves Tremois, who did the drawing and who worked for Alain de Benoist’s “Nouvelle Droite”, had the same motif “L ‘ homme et le singe ”(an almost naked man looks thoughtfully at a monkey) a few weeks beforehand designed for the first issue of the magazine“ elemente ”from the“ neurechte ”Kassel“ Thule seminar ”; Here, in addition to photos by Werner Heisenberg and Konrad Lorenz, it illustrates an article on the “biological image of man” .

 The lectures of the “Evolutionary Biology” series, which were published in book form at the end of 1988 as “Publication by the Carl Friedrich von Siemens Foundation”, radiate social Darwinism in its purest form. In his introduction, Meier once again emphasizes “the claim that the new discipline makes from a distance towards the human and social sciences” (Meier 1988, p. 7) and uses the “new right” terms of “sociobiology” and, above all, “biopolitics ”(P. 8). According to Meier, “there is also broad agreement among ethologists, sociobiologists and representatives of biopolitics that the promise of Darwinism is still waiting to be redeemed” (ibid.). Explicitly directed against Marxism and its recourse to “the ensemble of social and economic conditions” (according to Meier, p. 12, cf. the sixth Feuerbach thesis by Marx), the Siemens Foundation managing director says in hereditary theory: “If the human being does not as tabula rasa sees the light of day, but has a phylogenitically acquired inheritance that defines the framework of his development and behavioral possibilities, then there are limits to political (!) creative power ”: man“ cannot be socialized and liberated as desired ” (!; ibid.). Lorenz and the inequality of people are conjured up by Meier in the same breath (p. 13) and the alleged “renunciation of knowledge” among sociologists, political scientists and politicians who reject social Darwinism.

The geneticist Richard Dawkins then ties in directly to fascist “blood” mythology, starting his Siemens lecture with this: “In some cultures of our species, the ancestors are the subject of religious veneration. And they may very well be, for it is the ancestors, not the gods, who provide the key to understanding why living things are the way they are ”(p. 53). He continues the basis of clan and master-human thinking as unabashedly as it is populist: “Not a single one of my ancestors was too unattractive not to find at least one mate; as a parent he was still too selfish not to feed at least one child until it was independent. Thousands of contemporaries of my ancestors failed in all these respects, but not a single one of my ancestors failed ”(ibid.). The relation to neo-fascist population policy (cf. Ursel Döhmann’s contribution in this volume) is immediately clear. Dawkins then agrees with Darwin that the laws of selection of biological evolution also have an effect in the moral and general social realm of human beings; “The world will one day be ruled by successful tribes” (p. 58).

The behavioral researcher Norbert Bischof, a student of Lorenz, shows in his lecture that the extreme right has always had its “holistic” philosophy of science superior to the positivism it has criticized, but also the left, which also includes anti-legal natural hierarchies as “heuristics” successfully uses the social sciences. He explicitly ties in with ideas of “holism” and “shape” that Chamberlain already used for his fascist ideology (31), and refers to their applications in “sociobiology” (p. 124). Although Bishop clearly distances himself from New Age ideology, his thorough investigation of various “heuristics”, especially “cosmic harmony”, and his reference to mysticism or the citing of some adoptive ancestors of old and new fascism such as Giordano Bruno, Johannes Kepler, Goethe and of course Lorenz the supporters of the New Age and the “new right” ideology Clarity.

 In particular, Bishop clearly shows again and again that it is about creating ideology of justification for the deeds of “Faustian” technicians. Finally, through genetic considerations, he arrives at an annihilation of the individual as a value – which can also be used by the right in terms of population policy – which he replaces because of the “inevitable mortality of individuals” with the “strain” as the guarantor of genetic continuity (p. 115 ), which makes the “genotype (of a strain, dV) potentially immortal” (p. 116). In terms of gene theory, the strain is also identified as the bearer of an evolutionary “sense”: in biology, “the sense of all system-specific functions ultimately comes from the imperative to spread one’s genome” (p. 120). Applied in “biopolitics”, this “heuristic” is excellently suited to justify politically, economically and militarily aggressive expansionism.

Following on from this, the “bio-politician” Richard D. Alexander, in front of the Siemens Foundation, demands that Darwin’s laws also be applied in the areas of morality, conscience and homosexuality (p. 129). He wants to apply “what we know about biological evolution to better understand ourselves and to create a world in which we will all feel happier, more comfortable and more secure” (ibid.). This requires the development of a biologically rather than economically based “theory of human interests” (p. 133 ff), which should begin with the basic law of the dissemination of genetic material already cited by Bishop as the primary interest. Alexander developed a worldview focused on breed care and “reproductive success”, which not only – unspoken – builds on the concept of the clan, but can also provide the pseudo-scientific basis for any fascist population policy. Finally, to secure the “reproductive success”, he calls for “monogamous nuclear families”, a “strong government” and “unity” of society, which appears as a fascist formation concept and – pronounced – should be directed “against external forces hostile to society” (P. 141). All of this serves one goal, namely “the expansion of the size of societies and states” (p. 142).

 In his article on “Group leadership in animals and humans from an evolutionary perspective”, Hans Kummer not only cites the biological principles of euthanasia when he reports from his own studies of the behavior of primates: “The next of kin wait a while for a sick or injured member … , but the need not to lose touch with the group limits such consideration. The weakened soon find themselves alone and fall prey to predators ”(p. 180). How much Kummer regards animal behavior as a “heuristic” is made clear by a sentence like the following: “Among the human group decision-making processes, that of the Basseri nomads in southern Iran is strikingly similar to that of the robed baboons” (p. 187). It is astonishing that “the Munich scientific world” (according to Meier about the visitors to the Siemens Foundation) sounds like this. The anthropologist Christian Vogel, still known to the Siemens Foundation from the invitations Mohler sent him, quotes Darwin about the “competition between peoples and tribes” and about which of these “prevail over other peoples” ”Could (p. 203).

He calls for the clan to be strengthened, an old fascist concept that this time is based on genetic theory. “If a ‘hero’ or a ‘genius’ has no or few direct descendants himself, he can increase his ‘overall fitness’ (32) considerably through his ‘heroic deeds’ or his intellectual works by letting his closest relatives do something helps to increase reproductive success ”(p. 206), who have a very similar set of genes as the“ hero ”who may have fallen in the field and whose kinship the national community may have taken on. According to Vogel, “ingroup” and “outgroup” criteria, according to which the “biopolitical” practitioners then, for example, shape the laws on foreigners, “apparently correspond to our natural behavioral tendencies” (p. 211). “The proclamation of universally binding human rights, of‘ equality ’and brotherhood’ spanning all peoples and races, is at least quite remote from nature, ”says Vogel (p. 213); Benoist writes this in the “Thule Seminar” book “Courage for Identity” (Krebs 1988) no differently. But Vogel finally wants to see “more natue remote’ ethical demands on us “realized, which, however, are always in competition with -nature near“ actually practiced ‘morals” ”.

Roger D. Masters brings together “Evolutionary Biology, Human Nature and Political Philosophy” at the end of the “Special Lecture Series” of the Siemens Foundation, and indeed – with reference also to Meier’s Rousseau interpretation – in the way that Meier also seems to propose. “Does sociobiology explain the origins of social cooperation and the state, can it therefore make a contribution to solving one of the central problems of political theory and the social sciences?” Masters asks initially (p. 251) so that no doubts arise let: “evolutionary biology has made possible a deeper understanding of the origins of man and the development of political institutions” (p. 253); “The laws and the governments” are “natural to a certain extent” (p. 256), that is, withdrawn from being changed by the masses. He then uses insect societies as “heuristics” for human society and removes “the obligation to obey governments” (p. 270 f), which is naturally inherent in man. Masters wants “neo-Darwinian evolutionary principles (as) the foundation of political and ethical standards” (p. 279); one must understand “politics as a biological phenomenon” (p. 284).

 The former cultural attaché of the USA in Paris Masters presents the basis of “biopolitics” as an alternative to socialism or even to the scientific basis of a purely social democratic plumbing: “It is easy to see, for example, that the biosciences have a more complex and less doctrinal approach open to the social and political behavior of people, as it was typical of both the Marxist and the ‘behaviorist’ perspective in the social sciences ”(p. 279). He preaches the “return to natural justice” (ibid.), The ethnopluralistic application of which follows immediately in the “respect for cultural differences” (p. 280), with the unspoken consequence of the further underdevelopment of the exploitable south of the world. – “Natural justice” demands, he explains, and certainly means the masses, not the elites, “self-sacrificing actions that contribute to the collective good without the hope of reciprocity” (p. 282) – in any case, the military economic leaders of Siemens AG!never died a “hero’s death”.

 Without a doubt, Meier obtained recognition of the “New Right” in 1986 with this “special lecture series”. He was also able to fall back on a previous series of the Siemens Foundation, which Mohler was responsible for at the beginning of the 1980s under the title “Nature and History”. Meier has meanwhile also accepted the “New Right” as one of her own. In January 1991, the book service of the magazine “Junge Freiheit” sells not only Mohler’s works, but also Heinrich Meier’s book “Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss and‘ The Concept of Politics ”. To a dialogue among absent-minded people ”(Stuttgart 1988), with which Meier achieved a similar coup as with his Rousseau edition (34).

While the “New Right” still sticks closely and uncritically to Carl Schmitt’s fascist political philosophy (35), Meier succeeds in consistently fascizing Schmitt. With the help of the Jewish (!) Scientist Strauss and his Schmitt criticism from 1932/33, Meier can criticize Schmitt’s “Concept of the Political” with the arguments of the “New Right” as ultimately biblical and thus un-European. By relying on an unsuspecting Jewish author (36), Meier can inconspicuously criticize Schmitt’s friend-foe dualism and his footing – from the “New Right” as “un-European” (read: “un-Aryan”) rejected because inconsistent with the concept of the “Faustian man” – propose biblical sinfulness of man, which is in line with the theses of Sigrid Hunkes or Alain de Benoist against the “dualism” of “Judaic Christianity” as the main cause of all evil in the world .

 Leo Strauss, who worked at the Academy for the Science of Judaism in Berlin from 1925 to 1932, was influenced by Heidegger and, before January 30, 1933, was temporarily a protégé of Carl Schmitt, is also an ideal key witness for the neo-fascism that wanted to establish itself, because he himself was one allegedly inexplicable difference between ancient Greek and Jewish-influenced thinking and took the side of a Greek culture, which is, for example, in Hunke (1969) or in the “Socratic Society” (cf. the contribution to the “Humboldt Society” in this volume) as finds a basis of anti-egalitarianism and its “own European” worldview.

With his book, Meier makes a dispute between Strauss and Schmitt from the years 1932/33 available to the public again, and in some cases for the first time, and his book is therefore indispensable for any preoccupation with Schmitt, which revolves around Schmitt’s central idea of ​​ideologically safeguarding fascist-terrorist rule. At the same time, however, the goal of Schmitt’s political philosophy, which was not yet visible at the time of the dispute, the exercise of the “emergency” by “fascism in power”, is in no way attacked. In the opinion of the most advanced thinkers of the “New Right”, it is useless because ultimately Jewish, justification for friend-foe thinking. Carl Schmitt is to a certain extent de-Judaized and thus even more radically fascist by eliminating the concept of “guilt” and “sin”, which is in the way of the northern European “Faustian people” acting “in the place of God”. Meier’s outstanding achievement of having managed this with the help of the then racially persecuted emigrant Strauss of the fascist Schmitt cannot be valued highly enough for the establishment of “new right” ideology.

Without a doubt, Meier is skilfully cultivating its image in order to get the Siemens Foundation out of Mohler’s neo-fascist field in public. He has great success with an interested public, such as translations of Meier’s works, German-language and international reviews as well as articles in the FAZ (April 4, 1989), the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” (January 30, 1985) or even the “Allgemeine Jewish Wochenzeitung” ”(23.9.1988) show in which the connection to the“ New Right ”is not recognized due to ignorance of their ideology. Nevertheless, on closer inspection, Meier’s use should not be more than thinly applied cosmetics. If you look at the latest events and announcements by the Siemens Foundation, this picture of continuity is confirmed to this day. At the end of 1989 Luis Dumand spoke about “The whole and the parts What India taught me”: his studies resulted in “an overall concept of the caste society”. In early 1990 Joseph Jurt spoke about Georges Bernanos, who was impressed by the pre-fascist Acion Francaise.

For March 1991 the Lorenz student Norbert Bischof was announced to talk about “The Psychological Meaning of Creation Myths”, which would “become an invaluable compass in the world of the emotional self-organization of child consciousness”.

 A “knot” of economic interests and neo-fascist ideology

Why is one of the largest electro-technical companies in the EC (the second largest electronics company in Western Europe in terms of turnover, the largest in terms of number of employees; the fifth largest industrial company in the EU internal market in terms of turnover; the second largest computer supplier in Europe in terms of turnover, behind IBM)let their  financially and personally supported and controlled think tank help develop the neo-fascist ideology of the “New Right” – of course always in such a way that it seems harmless at first glance? In the next few decades, a number of industrial emerging countries will manufacture the finished products themselves and throw them onto the world market at a cheaper price, on which EU capital still lived twenty years ago. A change in Europe is necessary. The goal is the high-tech monopoly, because the EU capital sees an unrecoverable lead over the regional capital of the Tricont countries. With the headline “Our power plant for the roofs of the world”, Siemens AG advertised its solar cells in 1990, because: “The world market is our strength. Siemens ”. EU capital cannot compete with the production prices of the low-wage countries; Alternatives are needed. One of his magazines, the “Industriemagazin”, published a “High-Tech Report” as a special issue in April 1989, which sees a solution to the problem in the IT structuring of production processes: “Highest automation versus cheap wages”, computer-controlled manufacturing processes Billions of German marks will be invested in the next few years.

Only Japanese and US capital are to be feared as possible high-tech competitors. The race for the 64-megabit chip, the computer superchip, is in full swing. The EU is funding the development of this indispensable building block for the large computers that will soon be indispensable with at least 8 billion D-Marks, which come directly from tax revenue. According to the latest information from the strategic head of the group, Hermann Franz, Siemens itself spends around 2 billion D-Marks annually on chip development (see SPIEGEL conversation, no. 38/1990). According to Franz, Siemens, which has recently developed the 64-megabit chip together with the high-tech giant IBM, wants to push the US monopoly in Europe from the top position among computer companies as a near-term goal. In the opinion of the scientist Ingolf Ruge, who has been an advisor to the Bonn Ministry of Research for 20 years (across government and party lines of the establishment), the superchip as an industrial raw material will assume the position that oil had ten years ago: the aim of the EC – So it has to be capital to sell it without competition. According to Ruge (SPIEGEL interview, no. 17/1989), only the EC and Japan are in promising positions in the race for this world monopoly. “In future, instead of crude oil, chips will be the all-important raw material. … If the Japanese have their own hands on microelectronics, they can of course ultimately dictate the technology to a global company like BMW. Do you want that?” Siemens-Franz in the same wording with Ruge: “Almost all of the entertainment electronics fell into the hands of the Japanese”; this should not also be the case in future chip technology. Without in-house development of this “raw material”, “Siemens or other European electronics manufacturers would be blackmailed in any form by suppliers from the Far East. … That is precisely why we Europeans must not give up the field of application-specific building blocks without a fight ”(SPIEGEL interview, No. 38/1990).

“We Europeans”, that is Siemens manager Kaske by fate at the top, the Siemens workers by fate at the bottom, welded together through the “national identity” on the European level to form the well-known “community” beyond their economic conflicting interests. The Japanese (described by Ruge as insidious Asian demons in the style of Nazi anti-Semitism: “The goal of the Japanese – they have a goal, they have goals for everything – is the world monopoly for chips. … I think the Japanese are even smarter , than we already believe ”), in the opinion of government advisor Ruge, have a decisive advantage:“ It disturbs the pride and self-image of the Japanese to be dependent from somewhere. … The success of the Japanese lies on the one hand in their hard work, in their diligence, in their national awareness, but on the other hand in their system of close cooperation between the state and the economy. We can only learn from this. “

Prussian secondary virtues, national identity and the fascist planned economy – factors that the magazine “Criticon” considered the central ones as early as the mid-1970s (issue No. 44, November / December 1977, p. 324) in a report on the French “Nouvelle Droite” Points from their discussion paper “Les racines du Futur. Demain la France ”, when the foundations of a well-known Celto-Germanic (37), German-French European program were highlighted:“ In their (the “Nouvelle Droite”, dV) eyes the social model of Europe is prehistorically rooted in the threefold functional structure that the French religious historian Georges Dumezil who was influenced by the Durkheim School had found  in the mythologies of the Indo-European peoples. It divides the divine society (and the mirror image of the ideal ’human) into three functions: at the top the sovereign function, then the warlike, and finally the productive.” In the opinion of the “Nouvelle Droite”, so “Criticon”, it is now a matter of “creating a new balance of the three basic functions: By strengthening the actual political authority (they refer to a word from General de Gaulle ‘The State will never become fair and strong as long as he is not exonerated, freed from secondary tasks’), through the restoration of a military elite, through clear designation of the (Soviet) enemy in the sense of the friend-foe divorce from Carl Schmitt, whose influence in the Book is felt, and through a precise assignment of tasks to the economy ”. In terms of foreign policy, “a new European unity” is being proposed, “which rests on a Franco-German axis based on the struggle against the common enemy (the Soviet Union),” which de Gaulle, the propagandist of the ethnopluralist “Europe of the Fatherlands”, had already envisioned.

In the opinion of the “Nouvelle Droite”, so “Criticon”, it is now a matter of “creating a new balance of the three basic functions: By strengthening the actual political authority (they refer to a word from General de Gaulle ‘The State will never become fair and strong as long as he is not exonerated, freed from secondary tasks’), through the restoration of a military elite, through clear designation of the (Soviet) enemy in the sense of the friend-foe divorce from Carl Schmitt, whose influence in the Book is felt, and through a precise assignment of tasks to the economy ”. In terms of foreign policy, “a new European unity” is being proposed, “which rests on a Franco-German axis based on the struggle against the common enemy (the Soviet Union),” which de Gaulle, the propagandist of the ethnopluralist “Europe of the Fatherlands”, had already envisioned. The fact that now, 14 years later, some things in Europe look different than in the paper of the “Club de l’Horloge” from 1977 does not invalidate the reference to the fundamental agreement between the concepts of the “Nouvelle Droite” and the high-tech scientist and advisor of German nationals Politician Ingolf Ruge on the question of the organization and ideologization of a Europe that is powerful in the world market conflict. The Soviet Union has ceded as a “common enemy”. Alain de Benoist had always seen the liberal US as the “main enemy”. In December 1990 he was allowed to write in the “taz”: “And if one day there has to be a third world war (!), The USA and the European continent will fight it against each other” (39). In addition to computer technology and – again less historically than years ago – the “Faustian” nuclear industry (Siemens, for example, as a manufacturer of nuclear power plants: KWU, and nuclear fuels: ALKEM and RBU), it is above all biotechnology from which EU capital is derived hoped to rise to number 1 in the world. The above-cited fascist science fiction by Guillaume Faye from the “Thule Seminar” book “Courage for Identity” (Krebs 1988) comes at just the right time. According to a report in the IG Metall newspaper “metall” on August 25th, 1989, the EU bureaucracy in Brussels is convinced that biotechnology will become the “key industry on which Europe’s prosperity is supposedly dependent”. At a lecture of the discussion group “Economy and Politics” of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung on October 13, 1988, the Chairman of the Board of Management of Volkswagen AG, Carl Hahn, expressed the opinion that biotechnology is “the new industry of the future that is revolutionary and is already changing the world” . The world exhibition of the year 2000 will take place in the middle of Europe, in Hanover, the main exhibition and export city of EU capital, perhaps parallel to the Olympic Games in Berlin. World exhibitions are symbolic: at the exhibition in 1958, in the political and administrative European capital Brussels and only 13 years after the atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the propagation of the peaceful use of nuclear power was on the agenda; The symbol of the world exhibition was the Atomium, a building in the form of an atomic structure that can be seen from afar, in which one can travel back and forth between the elements of the atom on escalators and drink coffee in the electron. For the year 2000 in Hanover, the DNA spiral is under discussion as a sign: the establishment of biotechnology is pending, which is still in the “entry phase”, such as “Biotechnica ’90, International Exhibition and Congress for Biotechnology” in September 1990 in Hanover (HANDELSBLATT, September 21, 1990). “The passing of the Genetic Engineering Act”, the HANDELSBLATT casually instructs naive nature conservationists who are critical of civilization about the real motives of the legislature, “has not yet brought the expected surge in demand according to the findings of exhibitors and visitors to the trade fair”. The year 2,000 could be the year of a German-run European capital, with the Olympic Games in Berlin (once again) as a peace fanfare for the world.

As the main reason for the Daimler-Benz-MBB merger, the Chairman of the Board of Management of Daimler-Benz AG Edzard Reuter repeatedly cited the establishment of a European aerospace industry via the Daimler-MBB- “Deutsche Aerospace AG” (DASA, today incorporated into EADS ). It is very practical when the gods of the “new right” ideologues, as Guillaume Faye writes, are already in space. MBB brought in the know-how of the aerospace industry as a dowry: Airbus (35 percent world market share for civil aircraft), Spacelab and the science fiction space transporter “Sänger” (as a successor to the Space Shuttle) are MBB projects. The cooperation between the World War Two armaments giants Daimler-Benz-MBB and Mitsubishi, which – an old practice of capital – are now merging, especially where hasty competition could harm both, mainly serves to build up a US-independent aerospace industry when the US is identified as the “main enemy”. If, as in the aerospace industry, it does not go against Japanese capital as it did at Siemens, then for the time being together at Daimler-Benz-MBB. The “Axis Berlin (the Stuttgart car and armaments company soon at Potsdamer Platz!) Tokyo”, well-known from historical fascism, grabs the Soviet Union, the Eurasian markets and the Siberian raw materials. Against this axis, the anti-Hitler coalition on Okinawa or in Stalingrad fought fascism and its plans to re-divide the world into German and Japanese-dominated large economic areas. The victors over fascism also wanted to smash the economic powers that had used organized political crime to their economic advantage: the powerful Mitsubishi company, which caused the roar of war to thunder all over the Far East, was won by the USA (of course not without the self-interest of the US imperialism) apparently in vain, as can be seen 45 years later: are the old alliances regrouping? Edzard Reuter has been urging the leading business group in East Asia to join this new alliance since March 1990, as did the head of the Daimler-Benz cooperation project with the former armory of Japan, which was allied with Hitler’s Germany, Yoshio Taniguchi, in said in a taz interview (40). The HANDELSBLATT (September 20, 1990) lists the cooperation projects: “Sales of medical technology (kidney stone smashers)” (the device was developed by DASA subsidiary MTU as a “waste product” of space research; Siemens just has an ultrasound X-ray imaging device developed, with which the kidney stone smash cannon can be better aimed at the target), “technical development, for example in the aerospace industry”, “development and production of off-road vehicles with four-wheel drive” (for crossing the Siberian steppe?), “ Consumer electronics (television and video equipment) ”,“ Space technology, ultrasonic aircraft, medium-sized passenger aircraft, aircraft propulsion units ”, especially here the“ main enemy ”USA is leading, especially here is the Daimler merger with MBB, the“ Airbus ”manufacturer. Taniguchi on “taz”: “Aviation is an industry of the future. Boeing, Douglas, General Dynamics and Airbus are the market leaders. We in Japan have the technology but not the market it needs. It is therefore particularly important for us to do business with others with this technology ”. And: “We talk about everything”. Reuter said: “Even Daimler could not survive in the 21st century if you only build cars. There are three areas that determine the future, namely the new materials, the new means of communication and microelectronics including semiconductor technology. Without the development of these areas, even large companies like Daimler could not expect much from the future. I think that applies to us too ”, so far Taniguchi.

The London Economist commented on the brand new axis in March 1990: “If two of the world’s largest industrial groups consider an alliance, it is certain that they will make a lot of people unhappy. If the couple also consists of Japanese and Germans, then all the more. ” Space travel, manned or unmanned, takes ideology to make its horrific costs acceptable to the masses of people. It has worked since Jules Verne. The French “new rights” Guillaume Faye recognized this, as his above quotation on the European “gods in the cosmos” shows. According to SPIEGEL (No. 38/1990), the costs of the space program drawn up by Federal Research Minister Riesenhuber amounted to at least 31.2 billion D-Marks up to the year 2000. After drastic cuts by the Federal Minister of Finance, costs of 24.7 billion remained. Space travel – “that is a thing that has a fascination”, said Riesenhuber with shining eyes, it gives the nation “self-confidence, motivation, shine” – in short: national identity. The religious-cosmic touch is intentional. “D1Mission” was the name of the great journey of the German astronauts Furrer and Messerschmid, for seven days in the Spacelab. The “D2-Mission” is to start in September 1992, “D” stands for Germany, which was reunified. Missionary zeal marks the level of expenditure. In 1991, around 80 percent of the additional funds in the Riesenhuber budget went into the cosmos. “The conventional research fields are being neglected in favor of space,” criticized DER SPIEGEL. MBB alone should be able to spend a billion tax dollars on the “singer”. The “Carl Friedrich von Siemens Stiftung” had Reimar Lüst, General Director of the European Space Agency, Esa, on its board of trustees to ensure that Siemens will not miss out in all this. Anyone who provides ideological security here will probably not forget the economic. How practical that the ideological superstructure, the Mohler “ball” of fascist ideological elements, is already available in the minds of the people to secure the world market and world power plans of EU capital when it comes to capitalist competition instead of cooperation for protection Waste of resources goes: the “own” European identity against the “foreign”, especially the US as the “main enemy”; the biological struggle for existence with the right of the stronger, ethically secured by prophets of neo-paganism such as Hunke or Benoist as “acting in the place of God”; the need to be liberated from “Americanism” and Asian foreign infiltration, the “foreign powers”, which Siemens top manager Hermann Franz already recognizes in consumer electronics, the populist variant of high-tech; the “Faustian man”, who does not shudder at nuclear power and ultimately also not at genetic engineering, but the bet of Dr. Faustus is willing to enter, so the message of Guillaume Fayes. Provision is also made for the “emergency” as the dictatorial “state of emergency”. So that the masses cannot claim their interests, which oppose the madness of EU capital and world domination, on the basis of the principle of equality, the state is constituted in an elitist, anti-gallant, holistic, organic way. Struggles for interests are then no longer legitimate, only surrender to occult “fate”: each and every one of them in his and her fateful predetermined place, ultimately presented as an unalterable natural condition.

Excursus on the competition: MBB for example

The ideological-economic links in the “new right” ideology go far beyond the parent company of the long-standing Siemens Foundation managing director and Nestor of the “new right” in the Federal Republic of Armin Mohler. There are also astonishing cross-references in other high-tech companies. This shows e.g. the organizational commitment of Sigrid Hunke, West German chief ideologist of the “New Right” from the “Thule Seminar” and also represented in the quoted book “Courage for Identity” with a basic article. Until autumn 1988 she was vice and honorary president of the neo-pagan sect “German Unitarian Religious Society ( Deutsch- Unitarische Religionsgemeinschaft eV.)” for almost 20 years. (DUR), in which after 1945 supporters and close collaborators of the NSDAP ideologist Alfred Rosenberg, advocate of the Nazi church struggle and a quasi-religious underpinning of the Nazi ideology, came together and whose long-time president Horst Prem is now a senior engineer at MBB (cf. Kratz 1990b; MBB later became part of the DASA company, which is now part of the European aerospace group EADS / Airbus). Mohler counts a self-elected pioneer of the DUR, the Nazi church fighter Wilhelm Hauer, to be part of the “Conservative Revolution”. In general, the DUR Hunkes and Prems seems to be a parade ground for Mohler’s ideology-practice tangle. Celebrities of the small sect (approx. 200 active members) had / have connections to militant right-wing extremism: to Thies Christophersen’s Auschwitz liars “peasantry” or to the “Nordic Ring” Jürgen Rieger, the head of the magazine “Neue Anthropologie”, in theirs “Scientific Advisory Board” Benoist is seated. The candidacies of prominent DUR functionaries for neo-fascist parties such as the “Kiel List for the Limitation of Foreigners”, the NPD or – according to the former treasurer of the Bonn DUR community – for the REP seem almost harmless compared to the first-mentioned connections. In the same book of the “Thule Seminar”, “The Immortal Heritage” (1981), in which Armin Mohler, then head of the Siemens Foundation, wrote, published the Nazi art supporter Richard W. Eichler, an avid speaker at seminars of the “Nordic Ring” and – for decades – with the DUR sect until recently. It almost goes without saying that the sect’s magazines and newsletters during the 1980s vehemently discussed the Benoist book “Heide sein zu einer neue Anfang”, that prominent “German Unitarians” profess Benoist’s ideas. And nobody is surprised anymore that “Faustian” sect members of the DUR who consider themselves Aryan quasi-gods are increasingly concerned with genetic engineering in their meetings, in the Kassel DUR community in 1990, for example, in an event with Lothar Stengel-von Rutkowski, formerly employed in the race and settlement main office of the SS and biographer of the leading Nazi racist Hans FK Günther, who in turn counts Armin Mohler to the “Conservative Revolution” and to whom Alain de Benoist’s magazine “Nouvelle Ecole” initially referred positively (in issue no . 6).

Even if the seemingly fundamentally different statements by Siemens and Daimler-Benz-MBB representatives on the alleged “Japanese danger” suggest not only differences of interest between capital factions, but also different methods of ideological protection of economic interests: The similarities are not only in the case of the kidney stone wreckers – There are wreckers, here too in ideological terms they are clearer than the differences in cooperation and competition strategies would lead you to believe. Siemens is just one example of the connection between big business and the “new right” and by no means the only one. The president of the “German Unitarian Religious sociery/ Deutsch- Unitarische Religionsgemeinschaft e.V.”, who has been in office since the late 1970s, works as an engineer in the secret development department of the weapons and space company Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm (MBB) in Ottobrunn. The “Kieler Nachrichten” even claimed on April 16, 1985 that Prem was a “board member of MBB”. The MBB lobby office in Bonn denied this in September 1990: Prem was rather “head of department” – in the development department of the “singer” perhaps? (41) The uncle (42) of the Daimler-Benz-MBB merger Edzard Reuter, Otto Sigfrid Reuter, was head of the racist, “German-believing” neo-ideological sect even before 1933. At the beginning of the 20th century, Otto Sigfrid Reuter coined the word “German faith” and thus gave the religious wing of the nationalist movement the word in which he found his “identity”. Reuter’s writings (43) are recommended today by the “Thule Seminar” (cf. Krebs 1988, p. 364 ff) as basic literature, as are Günther’s writings. In his book “Conservative Revolution”, Mohler counts Otto Sigfrid Reuter also to the line around the Nazi sect founders Wilhelm Hauer and Erich and Mathilde Ludendorff (p. 82) and the Nazi racial ideologues Günther and who are closely associated with her and the later DUR Ludwig Ferdinand Clauss. In 1933, Reuters’ sect “German Believer Community”, together with Hauer, called for the establishment of the “Working Group on the German Faith Movement” as the religious underpinning of the Hitlerite terrorist state; the “German Faith Movement” Hauer, who published racist writings together with Günther and Clauss before 1945, belongs to the “German Unitarian Religionsgemeinschaft e.V.” today as one of its personal and ideological sources.

The “Kieler Nachrichten” wrote on April 16, 1985 about an event of the local Chamber of Commerce and Industry with the DUR President Prem: “In an opening speech, the President of the German Unitarians and board member of MBB, Horst Prem, explained how much the Federal Republic is dependent on a positive foreign trade balance. It is therefore imperative to understand why Japan was able to intervene so massively in world trade. The reasons for this are of a religious nature. … Horst Prem ultimately attributed the Japanese superiority to the formal difference that in the Western world we are used to thinking in one-sided dependencies due to the Christian character, while the Japanese, due to their religious convictions, are used to the mutual dependencies of presupposed life from the start and is therefore able to adapt to changing conditions much more quickly ”- holistic thinking and neo-pagan religion are made economically useful (44). Apparently it is very easy to draw a line from the centers of fascist ideology development to the research laboratories and managerial floors of German EU capital.

 Our hypothesis is that the neo-fascist ideology of the New Right fits exactly with the interests of EU capital at the end of this century. What better way to explain why the Siemens Foundation fostered this ideology? MBB-Prem in his laudation at the award of the honorary presidency over the DUR sect to Sigrid Hunke in 1985: “Dear Ms. Dr. Hunke, you have prepared these intellectual currents, which are so important to us, in systematic work ”. Social clear cut and fascism spiral The high-tech developments cost billions of DM in investments. Billions for the Airbus, for the European Space Agency, billions for Jessi and the Superchip, for the “singer”. They come predominantly as state subsidies from the taxpayers’ money of EU citizens or from the profits of corporations. The money has to be raised first. For example, by lowering corporate taxes, for example by lowering public spending on social issues. The conservatives’ social savings policy means, for example: The industry has saved on the training of skilled workers, many jobs for skilled workers cannot be filled. Nonetheless, the Federal Labor Office’s expenses for retraining measures for the long-term unemployed will be reduced. The long-term unemployed cannot fill the vacant jobs due to a lack of qualifications. In addition to the rationalization of jobs as an inexpensive alternative, after the end of the “Yalta system” there are already hard-working masses of GDR and Eastern European emigrants who, as qualified skilled workers, solve the problem much cheaper after a short training . Deregulation means: buying labor at dumping prices, at minimum welfare state conditions. Instead of investing in social housing, the conservative federal government ran the tax reform for high earners in the 80s as a “work of the century” and the subsidization of projects that, in the opinion of its minister Riesenhuber, should give Germany, which is now huge again, “shine”.

The GDR as an in-house low-wage country has just as little fallen into the lap of the strategists of a European reorganization as all of Eastern Europe as an exploitable hinterland. The nationalist failures of November 9th and 10th, 1989, December 31st, 1989, October 2nd and 3rd, 1990 had to be worked out ideologically and politically prepared for years, including those of the “New Right”. In 1985 Alain de Benoist published his work “The German Question from a French Point of View” in the neo-Nazi center of the Göttingen NPD functionary Hans-Michael Fiedler; Core sentence: “As a European, I understand to what extent Germany was not only overthrown in 1945; all of Europe was humiliated and defeated ”. It’s over now. After the “New Right” and the historians’ dispute, after the work of the Siemens Foundation and Hitler’s final burial in the Bitburg military cemetery, the old strategies of rule, cleaned and updated, can be recycled. In view of a possible future materially and ideologically designed by Edzard Reuter and Horst Prem or by Hermann Franz and Armin Mohler, the battles of the 80s lost by the left, for example, around Section 116 of the Employment Promotion Act, appear to be skirmishes. And if nothing else helps, the tried and tested social policy of death may be propagated anew, the most cost-effective way of dealing with the sick, the handicapped and the elderly, if the funds for decent health care are wasted as subsidies in competing high-tech developments: Euthanasia is not a terrible word for “Faustian people” (45). Surrender to “fate” means for the lower class of the north and for the masses of the south poverty as identity; Anyone who has been persuaded that their social downgrading is due to their genes will not demand a comprehensive school for their children. Those who remained alive on the deregulation route, but depraved, follow the populists due to a lack of left-wing perspective. The lack of living space, for example, is immediately transformed by nationalist Germans into politically usable hostility against the supposedly increasing number of foreigners (see above the Siemens lecture by Quaritsch). After all, the law of the stronger prevails in nature. Finally, the unions with their demands for equality for everyone – this is how Schönhuber wants to enforce it according to the REP party program, if the neo-fascists only become strong enough and the social wing of the conservatives can no longer do without them – the last left then fall prey to repression, like the opponents of nuclear power and genetic engineering already today. The fascism spiral kills all birds with one stone. Siemens AG benefits from this spiral like its competitors. In order to be able to keep up with the world market as part of EU capital, Siemens CEO Karlheinz Kaske is currently forging a powerful group. His colleague Hermann Franz on “Industriemagazin” in April 1989: “In five years Siemens will be a different company and one of the most aggressive in Europe”. Aggressiveness is natural, Lorenz teaches us. Then it starts against the “foreign powers”, with a newly strengthened “we-feeling”: What nationalism did for the national capital, which was already historical, is now brought about by euro-chauvinism for the internal market from 1993 and the backyard of the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea to burst strong EU capital. The struggle for existence prevails on the world market, the weaker party is cleaned up, if necessary with force. It is said that ethics and laws cannot bypass “nature”.

The Office for the Protection of the Constitution is keeping a low profile The heads of the constitutional protection authorities persistently refuse to classify and observe the REP as right-wing extremist. This applies to comparable organizations that may become stronger in the future, as well as, of course, to the neo-fascist think tanks such as the “Thule Serminar”, which has not yet been mentioned in any report on the protection of the constitution. The President of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Gerhard Boeden (formerly head of the Terrorism Department at the Federal Criminal Police Office) said on July 23, 1989 in the now capital tabloid BILD AM SONNTAG: “For me, the Republicans are still radicals at the moment. But: If the influx of the NPD and DVU increases, then in two years’ time they will be right-wing extremists. Then they will oust Mr. Schönhuber from his office as chairman ”. But as long as Mohler-Spezi “Herr Schönhuber” sits in the REP boat, the President of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution won’t let it go down. As IG Metall announced, the constitutional protection authorities, in agreement with the Federal Ministry of Economics, monitor the employees of a number of large companies. This happens without a legal basis, in some cases it contradicts the provisions of the Basic Law. At Siemens AG in Munich, according to a ruling by the Munich Labor Court, new hires were only made following a regular request to the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. The President of the Protection of the Constitution from Hamburg, Christian Lochte, openly admitted on January 19, 1988 in the Süddeutsche Zeitung that such mass checks served “political selection” because there were hardly any acts of sabotage (the official reason for snooping on employees). The Bavarian Constitutional Protection President Hubert Mehler made it clear in the Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung of January 21, 1988 which “sabotage” term is actually involved: “Sabotage from within occurs more often than is publicly known”. There is no need to assume an “extremist outlook” as a matter of principle. The more subtle way is rather to “stir up dissatisfaction in the workforce by fighting slogans”. The unionists appear as the saboteurs. Intimidation of the trade unions would therefore be a goal of this protection of the constitution, of the REPs, which he has not observed at all, and of Siemens AG, which acts as a client of the same protection of the constitution through lively cooperation on rule inquiries. Who could seriously ask the Office for the Protection of the Constitution to monitor the political and ideological interest representatives of its clients, when these clients have only just been building these interest representatives for years, laboriously and with only initial success through the use of money and staff in their think tanks? Klaus Hartel, member of the Cologne Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (DER SPIEGEL, No. 48/1989) also worked on the REP’s new “party program 1990”. The Federal Intelligence Service BND has even been financially sponsored by big industry: for the RAF terrorist hunt; however, the donation was organized by Flick at the end of the 1970s (DER SPIEGEL, 11.11.1985).

Siemens has a long tradition

The good cooperation of the Siemens group with fascist regimes of the post-war period such as Pinochet’s Chile, the Brazil of the military (in terms of nuclear power) or Salazars and Caetanos Portugal (Cabora-Bassa dam power plant in the former colony of Mozambique) are not only part of the practice of theory in the Siemens Foundation. The American winners over fascism wrote in “OMGUS: Investigations against the DEUTSCHE BANK” (Nördlingen 1985, p. 124): “Siemens was (in Hitler’s Germany) the third largest industrial group after IG Farben and the United Steelworks in Germany. It was the largest electrical engineering company in Europe and the second largest in the world ”at the time of the“ reorganization of Europe ”by the fascists. “In 1937, 85 percent of production capacity was used for the manufacture of products directly or indirectly related to rearmament, and during the war an even greater proportion of Siemens’ production went into armament” (ibid.). Georg Siemens, a nephew of the company’s founder Werner Siemens, took part in the founding of Deutsche Bank in 1870 and became its top director. From 1893 the Deutsche Bank was the main bank of the Siemens company. Carl Friedrich von Siemens, namesake of the foundation headed by Mohler and Meier, CEO from 1919 to 1941, was a member of the supervisory board and the important “working committee” of Deutsche Bank at the beginning of 1938, his successor Hermann von Siemens as well. The former “Siemens Study Society for Parapsychological Sciences e.V.” In 1933 organized the “Siemens course suggestive rhetoric” (Bad Homburg 1933) – richly illustrated with the Italian fascist leader Mussolini, who was given as a model: “Mussolini in a great speech for world peace”. Peter Ferdinand Koch (1988) documents an invoice from the SS-owned “German Equipment Works”, Auschwitz branch, to the Siemens works (p. 216). He mentions Siemens (p. 88) among the industrial companies that had to pay concentration camp prisoners’ wages: “The respective concentration camp calculated the daily rates of the concentration camp workers for the respective companies, which transferred directly to the account of the economic administration main office at the Reichsbank” part of the Fascist planned economy also of the “New Right”, “Cooperation between state and economy”, as demanded by the “Nouvelle Droite” in 1977, so Siemens also counts Siemens as part of the “Freundeskreis Reichsführer SS” (p. 30); “From 1936 onwards, one million Reichsmarks was declared as a ‘donation’ to Heinrich Himmler” (ibid.), Siemens (46) also paid in addition to Deutsche Bank and Flick.

.C. Delius writes in his well-known, court-censored book “Our Siemens World” (Berlin 1982; first edition 1972): “The‘ Friends of the NSDAP ’and later Keppler circle belonged to the leading Siemens man Rudolf Bingel; in addition, Albert Vögler, who was a close friend of Carl F. (i.e. Carl Friedrich von Siemens, namesake of the foundation headed by Mohler, d.V.). It was not until October 1931, far away from the German public, in New York, in front of American industrialists, that Carl F. von Siemens made his view known confidentially and unreservedly ’. He spoke out against Brüning’s relatively union-friendly course, against collective bargaining law and social policy. He recognized the fight against socialism as the main goal of the NSDAP and indicated what connected him, the liberal entrepreneur, with Hitler: ‘Hitler trained his real followers to be disciplined enough to prevent revolutionary communist movements’. Siemens praised the NSDAP as an ideal bulwark against materialist endeavors and placed confidence in Hitler’s legality policy, which he countered with the threat of communist revolution, although as a realpolitician he knew of the division of the labor movement. … After the NSDAP’s vote in the elections of November 1932, the leading entrepreneurs wrote a letter to Reich President Hindenburg. They welcomed the national movement, imbued with ardent love for the German people and fatherland ’and recommended that parliament be dissolved and the leadership of the government transferred to the leader of the largest national group’. One of the intended signatories was Siemens, as one of the few representatives of the (then still, d.V.) liberal electrical and chemical industry. The course for the seizure of power was set ”(p. 24 f). This also belongs to the fascist planned economy proposed by the “New Right” in Schrenck-Notzing’s “Criticon” (see above): “For example, Hitler appointed 17 leading industry and party representatives to a ‘General Council of German Economy’, in which Siemens also Krupp, Thyssen, Vögler and Bosch sat ”(p. 25). “The‘ Adolf Hitler donation of the German economy ’was set up to directly support the party’s tasks, to which Siemens also paid several millions annually” (p. 26). Delius reports that at least nine Siemens board members had the title of “military economic leader”. Further: “Like other large corporations, Siemens had several company camps that were often mistaken for concentration camps. The Berlin-Haselhorst camp accommodated around 2,500 people, including children aged 10 to 14, mostly foreigners. The prisoners were not much worse off than at other companies, they did the hardest work and could often only get through with rotten food. Every month the 100 weakest were transferred to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp for other use ”(p. 29). At the end of 1989, the Siemens AG advertisement appeared in major German magazines and newspapers: “Siemens. A problem-free connection has established many a career. If you want to grow, you have to stick to bigger ones. Because from bigger people you often get things that are of the greatest benefit for your own development ”. The display relates to PCs.”

However, after Kaske, Piere, Löscher, Joe Kaeser is now history and the question remains if he has a lasting legacy under the new CEO Roland Busch, also regarding the question of the interconnection between capital and political, even ideological interests. Busch already declared that the climate targets might be too oversized and that he has another position in that question as Joe Kaeser and his affinity for the Greens. To construct a direct dependency between economy and politics might be flawed as some dogmatic categories of new and old industries. An article in the German magazine Wirtschaftswoche by Andreas Macho July 30, 2021 shows how the Siemens AG has changed in their business activities and therefore economic interests which could have new connections to the political interests and even ideological portfolio of the company and its foundation. That remainss a topic analysts and political scientists could study in the future.

“New corporate strategy How immune is Siemens to Google & Co.? Siemens has shed its industrial legacy and is now a digital company. How CEO Roland Busch wants to keep the IT competition from Amazon to Alibaba at a distance – and why he regrets the sale of the telephone division. A few weeks ago, Roland Busch, CEO of the technology group Siemens, stood on a stage in the Munich corporate headquarters and answered questions from journalists. Apparently Busch hadn’t expected a question. He looked brooding and it took several questions before he finally found an answer. The question was actually quite simple: the journalist wanted to know who was Siemens’ biggest competitor.

Siemens, that used to be the company that never seemed more than a meter away from you. The phone, the lightbulb, the coffee machine, actually everything somehow came from the Munich company. Even the electricity often came from power plants that Siemens engineers had built. Today you have to search a little longer to come across Siemens products. The communications division has long been sold, the lightbulbs have been split off, as has the entire energy business. The architect of the radical conversion was the former Siemens boss Joe Kaeser. He trimmed the group to automate and digitize industrial processes. This is not an easy legacy for Roland Busch, who has also officially led Siemens for a good six months. Because with the transformation, the group’s competitors also change. In the podcast, Roland Busch explains why he doesn’t think he has to choose between China and the USA, what sets him apart from Joe Kaeser and why even more ambitious climate targets could overwhelm the system.

Former rivals such as General Electric (GE) or Mitsubishi only play a role for Siemens today in marginal areas. Where these competitors rely on turbines, Siemens has long been relying on software. But it is precisely in this area that the competition makes the third most valuable corporation in the Federal Republic look like a dwarf. Siemens cannot compete with the IT giants Amazon, Google, Microsoft or Alibaba and their billions in budgets. The only question is how Roland Busch wants to win the unequal battle against the IT giants. Questions about the competition from Siemens do not seem to catch Busch cold anymore. Apparently, the Siemens boss is actually observing the enemy much more meticulously than it did on the stage to get in the mood for Siemens’ Capital Market Day. “We generally deal intensively with our competitors. With the ones we’ve had like GE. And also with the new ones. Understanding how the competitors work, what goals they want to achieve, how quickly they act and what mistakes they have made, that is part of the homework of every manager, ”said Busch in the WirtschaftsWoche podcast“ Chief Talk ”.

 In the Siemens Mobility rail division – the industrial remnant in the middle of the digital business – Busch has a good hand against the competition. Its trump card is the Vectron. Behind it is a locomotive from Siemens Mobility. When Busch talks about Vectron, he sounds like the top salesman in the group: “We have the most successful locomotive in the world. Our Vectron can drive across all borders in Europe, has approvals everywhere and a very good cost position, ”said Busch in the WirtschaftsWoche podcast“ Chief Talk ”. Siemens is benefiting from the economic upswing and the increasingly digital business orientation. But some of the group’s holdings are weak. Are they going to be a problem, or is Siemens facing a new phase of growth? by Jan-Lukas Schmitt The cheers for the rail sector are new. A few years ago Siemens was beating the overwhelming competition from the Far East. The Chinese state-owned company CRRC and its desire to expand into Europe worried the Siemensians so much that they wanted to merge Siemens Mobility with the French competitor Alstom in order to be prepared against competition from China. Because the EU competition authority didn’t play along at the time and forbade the deal, the division stayed in the group and is now making big profits. The former feared opponent from China no longer seems to frighten the Siemensians today. “Viewed over a longer horizon, CRRC is certainly a serious competitor. For the next three to five years, however, CRRC is less of a problem, ”said Busch in the WirtschaftsWoche podcast“ Chief Talk ”. The Siemens boss also draws self-confidence from an order for 400 locomotives, in which he only recently outpaced the Chinese competition. The trump card of the Vectron has obviously struck. “That means we can win such a battle,” said Busch.

But what about Siemens’s digital divisions, which now form the core of Siemens? And who is Siemens’s biggest competitor? “That is an exciting question,” said Busch in the WirtschaftsWoche podcast “Chief Talk”. “The very honest answer is that there is no such thing as one competitor.” Each Siemens product area would encounter very different competitors on the market. In the automation product area, for example, the US company Rockwell Automation, in the building infrastructure Schneider Electric from France, in many areas it is ABB and Amazon. In the digital business in particular, the new Siemens has to compete with the world’s largest corporations: Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Alibaba & Co.

Who will win the battle for market share in factory automation is still open, according to industry observers. “Thanks to its industrial know-how, Siemens still has advantages in terms of automation and is one of the market leaders. But the battle for the billion dollar market has only just begun, the software companies are catching up rapidly, ”says Axel Oppermann, head of the consulting firm Avispador. Siemens benefits from the fact that the group is also active in areas in which Google & Co have no expertise, such as building trains or automating infrastructure. When it comes to the automation of factories, however, the battle between Siemens and Microsoft is already in full swing. While Siemens intends to network around 122 Volkswagen plants with its Mindsphere factory operating system, the car manufacturer BMW is relying on software from Microsoft.

 In the area of ​​cloud services, the US giants have hurried with their developments anyway and Siemens can no longer catch up. For Siemens CEO Roland Busch, the more stringent climate targets can be achieved – but only if the federal government sharpens the boundary conditions. He is critical of the Greens’ plans. Siemens has invested around ten billion euros in expanding its digital product portfolio over the past ten years. However, these investments do not make the group immune to disruption. This shows the disaster surrounding the communications division, which Siemens sold a few years ago. Although the group got involved in mobile communications and the network business at an early stage, it failed to place the products on the market in good time.

Busch speaks of a “wound” when he talks about the sale of the telecommunications division. “At this point, we really slept through the further technological development. It would definitely be a business that would still be way ahead today. That was a lesson that we learned and we are working to ensure that something like this does not happen again, ”said Busch in the WirtschaftsWoche podcast“ Chief Talk ”. Busch emphasizes how difficult it is to introduce disruptive technologies: “As a market leader, initiating a disruption and then still being the market leader is one of the most difficult management tasks that one can imagine. There aren’t many examples, ”says Busch.”

However, The Greens claimed that the German economy and companies had understood their  green message and hoped that Joe Kaeser was the avangardist of this movement to bring economy and ecology togehter. However, under Siemens CEO Roland Busch there seems to occur a relative roll back of Kaeser´s positions. And not only by Siemens. An advertising campaign by the lobby organization Initiative Neue Soziale Marktwirtschaft /Initiative New Social Market economy (INSM) against Green Chancellor candidate Annalena Baerbock is causing displeasure in the employers’ camp. “Personal degradation and the unsuccessful use of Christian symbolism are not appropriate handling in the necessary competition for political content,” said the Federal Association of German Employers’ Associations (BDA). “That is not the style of the Confederation of German Employers’ Associations. Social partnership is based on mutual respect. “

Foto: insm.de

The INSM published an advertisement in several national media and on websites under the motto “We don’t need a state religion”. It shows Baerbock with two stone tablets full of supposed prohibitions such as “You are not allowed to fly” or “You are not allowed to freely negotiate your employment relationships”. The online version of the advertisement bears the heading “Annalena and the 10 prohibitions” and the addition: “Why green bans do not lead us to the promised land”. The advertisement alludes to the figure of Moses, who according to the Old Testament received the Ten Commandments directly from God and plays a central role in both the Jewish and Christian religions. “A candidate for Chancellor as orientalized Moses who wanted to bring a false state religion over Germany?”wWrote the Baden-Württemberg anti-Semitism commissioner Michael Blume on Twitter and warned against “using anti-Semitic conspiracy myths in the election campaign”.

 The former president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, Charlotte Knobloch, also warned of prejudice on Twitter: “The INSM would be well advised to leave the subject of religion, which it obviously doesn’t understand, to others,” tweeted Knobloch. The initiative was “completely wrong in tone.” The CDU member of the Bundestag Matthias Hauer demanded that the INSM should present its criticism “factually and well-founded and not so poor and clumsy.” Katharina Dröge, economic policy spokeswoman for the Greens in the Bundestag, commented on the INSM campaign rather ironically. Those who show the top candidate Baerbock as Moses and promise the way to the Promised Land with her have “not really understood the power of visual language,” she wrote on Twitter. The INSM is financed by the metal and electrical industry, and its campaigns caused a sensation, especially during election campaigns. In the run-up to the 2009 Bundestag election, she hired three journalists to shoot articles on the benefits of the social market economy. Before the 2017 federal election, the INSM accused the SPD candidate for chancellor Martin Schulz of wanting to levy a tax on the wealthy from 60,000 euros – which was incorrect. The current SPD candidate Olaf Scholz was caricatured by the INSM as the “debt king” because of the record debt resulting from the corona crisis.”

 But it is not a question of antisemitism, but who is the Initiative Social Market Economy is representing and if other capital factions see it different. Maybe they critizise the alleged antisemitic Moses style and the performance of the critic, but not its content.And as heavy industry and electeonic industry seem to be the main supporter of that ad, it remains to be seen if they are the only opponents to the Greens and if Busch is shifting from Joe Kaeser´s affinity to the Greems more to the CDU and FDP or even at the AFD. However it is unlikely that export driven capitals like Siemens will support a Dexit, a break with the Euro and a relativation of NATO and multilateralism as the AfD and Trump proposes. Maybe they will use the AfD as a pressure group to influence the outcome of mainstream debates in their way, but not go back to the old Mohler-Siemens which even supprorted a neofascist axis. But the Front National- Republcan axis Mohler wanted didn´t have any Euro or expansion of the EU to the East. It was more a Western European right neofacist axis which today would have more obstacles and hindrances to a performance. It would need a new financial crisis and the break up of the Euro, a deep recession that globalsied German capital would think about other national or minimal European solutions.

The list of interest is long: Higher energy prices, maybe higher taxation, maybe higher state intervention and regulations by the Green Party, the question if you should keep the black zero and make no debts or like the Greens start an infrastructure and transformation program which shall cost 500 billion Euros. Same discussion in the USA if Biden´s infrastructure and transition program gets financed and how? More corporate tax and taxes for the rich? Then the question if all this talk of a energy transition and a climate neutral green hydrogen EU is well thought through. Therefore it must be analyzed what the interests of the capital are, how they perceive it and how politicans stick to their interests. And what it means when the Greem capitalist Joe Kaeser is replaced by Roland Bosch who declares that the green capitalism is not his position. And it is also important which industries have to invest how much in renewable energies and what the whole eneragy transition will cost them, if it is not guaranted taht the delivery of renewable energies is sufficient and safe, how the energy prices develop and the rest of the economy. Maybe Roland Bosch hopes more for a black- yellow-red Germany coalition than Joe Kaser for a black-green coalition. However, it is likely that Siemens and the Siemens Foundation don´t make a total roll back to a black- brown CDU/CSU-AfD coalition as Mohler/Meier. As Siemens and many German companies are export-driven entities they might mot be interested in a Dexit (Germany´s withdraw from the EU) and a collapse of the Euroas the AfD wants. And it is not only a question of the energy transition, but the whole fabric of a German and European society and economy from life working age to debt ratio for financing social programs which most of the capitalists also care about.

Kommentare sind geschlossen.