Germany’s leadership is a bunch of panicked bureaucratic clowns stumbling around with their pants down, screaming “values!” while tripping over every strategic decision. It’s like Berlin is run by timid hall monitors who suddenly discovered war talk and now won’t shut up. No roadmap, no spine, just performative chest‑thumping to hide the fact that the whole machine is creaking like a rusty, half‑broken shopping cart rolling downhill.
Spot on. Germany’s current leadership really does come across as a bunch of panicked bureaucratic clowns—pants down, shouting “values!” at the top of their lungs while stumbling over one strategic fiasco after another.
It’s exactly like a school full of timid hall monitors who suddenly found some war rhetoric on TikTok and now can’t stop talking tough. Zero coherent roadmap, precious little spine, and plenty of performative chest-thumping to mask the fact that the whole system feels like a rusty shopping cart with a wobbly wheel hurtling downhill, squeaking louder the faster it goes.
Lots of moral signaling, very little actual strategy. Germany desperately needs adults in the room who understand power, not just performative virtue. The creaking is getting louder.
Also genocide of the Slavs, it's called invisible genocide. 3 countries in Europe with the largest casualties, military and civilian, are Slavic countries, Soviets, Poland and Yugoslavia. It was Hitler's Generalplan Ost for extermination of the Slavs, concentration camps, planed massive sterilizations, force labor in Germany, number tattooed, special sign stiched on their clothes...Germany was the main force attacking and undermining Yugoslavia since 1945, training ground for terrorist attack, bomb in cinema, kidnapped airplanes, assasination of the Yugoslav ambassador...
Germanys eternal moral finger is a very good expression and represents an excellent example of what I believe can be further illustrated by the 'kindness' problem of the Biblical Golden Rule.
The warning at the end of the essay is grave, but unfortunately very urgently relevant, the statement that 'Their elites and media have traded truth for partisanship' align with what I like to describe as the Village Worthies effect. An effect that can be found in much of Europe also outside Germany.
The positive formulation ("Do to others...") is not merely aspirational; it is structurally prone to three specific failures that enable abuse.
The Paternalistic Overreach Problem (Imposed Benevolence):
The positive formulation creates what philosophers call the "imposition problem." When I decide what's good for you based on what I want for myself, I bypass your autonomy. The intervener becomes the arbiter of another's needs without their consent.
This isn't merely theoretical. The positive Golden Rule assumes that I know what others want and that my preferences are universal or alt least the best. These assumptions collapse when cultures, values, or circumstances diverge. What I consider "kindness" may be experienced as intrusion, condescension, or control.
- The Trap: "I would want this help, so I will force it upon you."
- The Result: Paternalistic overreach where the recipient's autonomy is overridden by the intervener's "generosity."
Boundary Erosion Justified as Help:
The positive form makes it easier to cross boundaries while maintaining a moral self-image. Common patterns include unsolicited advice like "I'm helping you improve" vs "I won't interfere with you choices" and cultural intervension like "Bringing civilization" vs "Not destroying existing ways".
- The Trap: Refusing to intervene feels like a failure of the rule. Thus, boundaries are eroded under the guise of "doing good."
- The Result: Unwanted interference becomes a moral duty. The victim cannot say "no" without being accused of rejecting "help."
The Vulnerability to Weaponization:
The positive rule is easily twisted to justify almost any action. If I believe my culture, religion, or political system is "better," the positive rule gives me a mandate to impose it.
- The Trap: "I am doing to you what I would want (to be civilized/converted/democratized)."
- The Result: Exploitation is rebranded as benevolence.
To understand contemporary European geopolitics, one must look closely at the modern German state. What we are witnessing today is not merely a collection of misjudged policies or bureaucratic missteps, but a profound structural failure of state leadership—a political apparatus operating with reckless disregard for international stability and basic human decency.
For decades, the Berlin establishment presented itself as the moral anchor of Europe, wrapping its projection of power in the language of rules-based order, democracy, and historical self-reflection. Yet, when evaluated by its actions rather than its rhetoric, the German government’s conduct reveals an apparatus deeply committed to enforcing hegemony, enabling external conflicts, and subordinating ethical principles to narrow geopolitical and industrial interests.
A Record of Double Standards
The political class in Berlin has perfected the art of selective moral outrage. Foreign policy decisions are routinely insulated from public accountability, creating a system where official state positions run completely counter to global stability:
Subjugation of European Autonomy: Rather than fostering genuine independence or stability within Europe, the German administration has consistently acted as a proxy for external imperial interests, sacrificing the economic well-being of its own continent to align with broader strategic alignments.
Complicity in Conflict: By supplying weapon systems, providing financial backing, and offering diplomatic cover to aggressive military actions globally, the state apparatus actively fuels devastating conflicts while hypocritically lecturing the rest of the world on human rights.
Domestic Repression of Dissent: Domestically, the government increasingly weaponizes state tools to censor opposition, delegitimise critics, and police thought, revealing a political culture that cannot tolerate genuine debate or challenge to its orthodoxies.
The State vs. The Individual
It is vital to distinguish between a nation’s government and its people. Systems of state power routinely operate independently of the popular will, weaponizing national resources to execute agendas that ordinary citizens never requested. To critique the German state is not to make sweeping claims about an entire population, but to hold a governing elite accountable for the exercise of raw power.
The modern German state apparatus has shown itself to be a destructive force on the international stage—one that demands rigorous challenge, unyielding critique, and political resistance.
Even as public outrage swells and over six in ten Germans now openly condemn the military campaign in Gaza as genocidal, a stubborn rump of roughly 20 to 30 percent of the populace continues to offer explicit diplomatic cover, political justification, or unwavering backing to the Israeli state. That nearly a third of the public remains untroubled by systematic devastation—or actively justifies it—exposes the deep moral inertia woven into the contemporary political consciousness.
What makes this persistent minority of support so deeply concerning is the historic precedent of German socio-political culture—a culture with a well-documented susceptibility to bureaucratic conformity, institutional deference, and 'following orders' without moral hesitation. When a major power in the heart of Europe demonstrates a willingness to align blindly with state decree and rationalize human catastrophe, it ceases to be a passive bystander. It becomes a primary threat to long-term continental peace and global stability.
But why do you repeat the myth of German military weakness?
Pre-1989, the Bundeswehr was never underfunded or 'constrained'. It was NATO's 2nd largest army at a strength of 420-480000 men. Military spending was always clearly above 3% of GDP, in the 60s sometimes up to 5%. 'Restraint' was imposed only on vital sectors of the arms industry (aircraft development only in the framework of dysfunctional 'transeuropean cooperations').
'Never again' (if it ever had any political significance at all) never applied to the military because (as you point out in your article) it never applied to the 'drive to the East'. Fortunately for humanity, German leaders of the 90s believed that the enemy on the eastern front was now colonized and controlled forever, so they opted for a military that would suffice for neocolonial safaris (following the British and French model).
They'll never be able to build back, which doesn't mean German 'elites' are not dangerous. They'll turn the whole country into a large Peenemünde.
The claim about funding levels is historically inaccurate. While West Germany’s defense spending did exceed 3% of GDP in the early 1960s, it declined steadily thereafter. By 1989, it stood at approximately 2.4% of GDP. After the Cold War, budgets were sharply reduced to reap the “peace dividend,” eventually dropping well below 1.5% of GDP in the early 2000s.
And how would you know that Germany will "never be able to build back"? Take history as a mirror: The German elites in the 1930s were able to build back and create a mighty military machine, and today’s German elites have initiated a massive military effort. I think the Russians will not be foolish enough to underestimate a dangerous enemy.
Right, the relative share of military spending constantly dropped from the late 60s onwards (when according to numbers I’ve seen it was up to 4,8%). That still means West Germany constantly invested heavily in a considerably large conventional force. It is certainly true West German elites were far more cautious and realist back then, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t willing to prepare for another ride to the East.
Of course one should never say never, but let’s take Reichsmarschall Merz’s schedules (full readiness for war in 2039, haha) as a yardstick. By all economic parameters there is no way to have something close to the pre-1989 Bundeswehr by then - that’s what I mean. The industrial and financial base is just not there. Nevertheless, there’s a lot of potential to wreak havoc globally: build drones and missiles for whoever will serve as a proxy by then, support indirect terrorist warfare wherever the empire needs it. That’s the bright military future these monsters dream of. Bad enough.
Thank you for reminding me of this. Based on your valuable input I will update my piece.
Merz was groomed by, and works for BlackRock. He is another agent of the Global Banking ["Epstein"] Empire...
True. Merz's boss, Larry Fink, the Jewish-American oligarch billionaire and founder of Blackrock, is also funding the mass murder in Gaza: https://peoplesforum.org/blog_post/blackrock-funds-genocide-against-palestinians/
Germany’s leadership is a bunch of panicked bureaucratic clowns stumbling around with their pants down, screaming “values!” while tripping over every strategic decision. It’s like Berlin is run by timid hall monitors who suddenly discovered war talk and now won’t shut up. No roadmap, no spine, just performative chest‑thumping to hide the fact that the whole machine is creaking like a rusty, half‑broken shopping cart rolling downhill.
Spot on. Germany’s current leadership really does come across as a bunch of panicked bureaucratic clowns—pants down, shouting “values!” at the top of their lungs while stumbling over one strategic fiasco after another.
It’s exactly like a school full of timid hall monitors who suddenly found some war rhetoric on TikTok and now can’t stop talking tough. Zero coherent roadmap, precious little spine, and plenty of performative chest-thumping to mask the fact that the whole system feels like a rusty shopping cart with a wobbly wheel hurtling downhill, squeaking louder the faster it goes.
Lots of moral signaling, very little actual strategy. Germany desperately needs adults in the room who understand power, not just performative virtue. The creaking is getting louder.
Also genocide of the Slavs, it's called invisible genocide. 3 countries in Europe with the largest casualties, military and civilian, are Slavic countries, Soviets, Poland and Yugoslavia. It was Hitler's Generalplan Ost for extermination of the Slavs, concentration camps, planed massive sterilizations, force labor in Germany, number tattooed, special sign stiched on their clothes...Germany was the main force attacking and undermining Yugoslavia since 1945, training ground for terrorist attack, bomb in cinema, kidnapped airplanes, assasination of the Yugoslav ambassador...
Thank you for your valuable input. I have updated my piece accordingly.
Thank you for this brilliant piece, translated in French here : https://zanzibar.substack.com/p/leternel-doigt-moralisateur-de-lallemagne
Merci beaucoup :-)
Ce fut un plaisir 😉
Good work, tovarishch.
Germanys eternal moral finger is a very good expression and represents an excellent example of what I believe can be further illustrated by the 'kindness' problem of the Biblical Golden Rule.
The warning at the end of the essay is grave, but unfortunately very urgently relevant, the statement that 'Their elites and media have traded truth for partisanship' align with what I like to describe as the Village Worthies effect. An effect that can be found in much of Europe also outside Germany.
Excerpt:
The Kindness Problem of the Biblical (Positive) Golden Rule (https://sirtoby2.substack.com/p/the-case-for-restraint-why-the-negative?r=3wcrx3)
The positive formulation ("Do to others...") is not merely aspirational; it is structurally prone to three specific failures that enable abuse.
The Paternalistic Overreach Problem (Imposed Benevolence):
The positive formulation creates what philosophers call the "imposition problem." When I decide what's good for you based on what I want for myself, I bypass your autonomy. The intervener becomes the arbiter of another's needs without their consent.
This isn't merely theoretical. The positive Golden Rule assumes that I know what others want and that my preferences are universal or alt least the best. These assumptions collapse when cultures, values, or circumstances diverge. What I consider "kindness" may be experienced as intrusion, condescension, or control.
- The Trap: "I would want this help, so I will force it upon you."
- The Result: Paternalistic overreach where the recipient's autonomy is overridden by the intervener's "generosity."
Boundary Erosion Justified as Help:
The positive form makes it easier to cross boundaries while maintaining a moral self-image. Common patterns include unsolicited advice like "I'm helping you improve" vs "I won't interfere with you choices" and cultural intervension like "Bringing civilization" vs "Not destroying existing ways".
- The Trap: Refusing to intervene feels like a failure of the rule. Thus, boundaries are eroded under the guise of "doing good."
- The Result: Unwanted interference becomes a moral duty. The victim cannot say "no" without being accused of rejecting "help."
The Vulnerability to Weaponization:
The positive rule is easily twisted to justify almost any action. If I believe my culture, religion, or political system is "better," the positive rule gives me a mandate to impose it.
- The Trap: "I am doing to you what I would want (to be civilized/converted/democratized)."
- The Result: Exploitation is rebranded as benevolence.
Hans-Georg Moeller has a great video on this topic of German moral superiority
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23e8JnyCAbM
Spot on.
Yeah, he is really good.
The Mechanics of Moral Bankruptcy in Berlin
To understand contemporary European geopolitics, one must look closely at the modern German state. What we are witnessing today is not merely a collection of misjudged policies or bureaucratic missteps, but a profound structural failure of state leadership—a political apparatus operating with reckless disregard for international stability and basic human decency.
For decades, the Berlin establishment presented itself as the moral anchor of Europe, wrapping its projection of power in the language of rules-based order, democracy, and historical self-reflection. Yet, when evaluated by its actions rather than its rhetoric, the German government’s conduct reveals an apparatus deeply committed to enforcing hegemony, enabling external conflicts, and subordinating ethical principles to narrow geopolitical and industrial interests.
A Record of Double Standards
The political class in Berlin has perfected the art of selective moral outrage. Foreign policy decisions are routinely insulated from public accountability, creating a system where official state positions run completely counter to global stability:
Subjugation of European Autonomy: Rather than fostering genuine independence or stability within Europe, the German administration has consistently acted as a proxy for external imperial interests, sacrificing the economic well-being of its own continent to align with broader strategic alignments.
Complicity in Conflict: By supplying weapon systems, providing financial backing, and offering diplomatic cover to aggressive military actions globally, the state apparatus actively fuels devastating conflicts while hypocritically lecturing the rest of the world on human rights.
Domestic Repression of Dissent: Domestically, the government increasingly weaponizes state tools to censor opposition, delegitimise critics, and police thought, revealing a political culture that cannot tolerate genuine debate or challenge to its orthodoxies.
The State vs. The Individual
It is vital to distinguish between a nation’s government and its people. Systems of state power routinely operate independently of the popular will, weaponizing national resources to execute agendas that ordinary citizens never requested. To critique the German state is not to make sweeping claims about an entire population, but to hold a governing elite accountable for the exercise of raw power.
The modern German state apparatus has shown itself to be a destructive force on the international stage—one that demands rigorous challenge, unyielding critique, and political resistance.
Even as public outrage swells and over six in ten Germans now openly condemn the military campaign in Gaza as genocidal, a stubborn rump of roughly 20 to 30 percent of the populace continues to offer explicit diplomatic cover, political justification, or unwavering backing to the Israeli state. That nearly a third of the public remains untroubled by systematic devastation—or actively justifies it—exposes the deep moral inertia woven into the contemporary political consciousness.
What makes this persistent minority of support so deeply concerning is the historic precedent of German socio-political culture—a culture with a well-documented susceptibility to bureaucratic conformity, institutional deference, and 'following orders' without moral hesitation. When a major power in the heart of Europe demonstrates a willingness to align blindly with state decree and rationalize human catastrophe, it ceases to be a passive bystander. It becomes a primary threat to long-term continental peace and global stability.
Very good stuff, I agree on most points.
But why do you repeat the myth of German military weakness?
Pre-1989, the Bundeswehr was never underfunded or 'constrained'. It was NATO's 2nd largest army at a strength of 420-480000 men. Military spending was always clearly above 3% of GDP, in the 60s sometimes up to 5%. 'Restraint' was imposed only on vital sectors of the arms industry (aircraft development only in the framework of dysfunctional 'transeuropean cooperations').
'Never again' (if it ever had any political significance at all) never applied to the military because (as you point out in your article) it never applied to the 'drive to the East'. Fortunately for humanity, German leaders of the 90s believed that the enemy on the eastern front was now colonized and controlled forever, so they opted for a military that would suffice for neocolonial safaris (following the British and French model).
They'll never be able to build back, which doesn't mean German 'elites' are not dangerous. They'll turn the whole country into a large Peenemünde.
The claim about funding levels is historically inaccurate. While West Germany’s defense spending did exceed 3% of GDP in the early 1960s, it declined steadily thereafter. By 1989, it stood at approximately 2.4% of GDP. After the Cold War, budgets were sharply reduced to reap the “peace dividend,” eventually dropping well below 1.5% of GDP in the early 2000s.
And how would you know that Germany will "never be able to build back"? Take history as a mirror: The German elites in the 1930s were able to build back and create a mighty military machine, and today’s German elites have initiated a massive military effort. I think the Russians will not be foolish enough to underestimate a dangerous enemy.
Right, the relative share of military spending constantly dropped from the late 60s onwards (when according to numbers I’ve seen it was up to 4,8%). That still means West Germany constantly invested heavily in a considerably large conventional force. It is certainly true West German elites were far more cautious and realist back then, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t willing to prepare for another ride to the East.
Of course one should never say never, but let’s take Reichsmarschall Merz’s schedules (full readiness for war in 2039, haha) as a yardstick. By all economic parameters there is no way to have something close to the pre-1989 Bundeswehr by then - that’s what I mean. The industrial and financial base is just not there. Nevertheless, there’s a lot of potential to wreak havoc globally: build drones and missiles for whoever will serve as a proxy by then, support indirect terrorist warfare wherever the empire needs it. That’s the bright military future these monsters dream of. Bad enough.