modify certain aspects of liberalism tornform the anti-fascist version, or in otherrnwords, to turn a free democracy intornwhat J.L. Talmon has called “totalitarianrndemocracy.” The essential feature ofrnsuch a system is the prohibition of anyrn”opposition to democracy.” To do this,rn”democracy” must be transformed into arnpolitical religion, which indeed has happenedrnthroughout the Western world.rnThe final chapter in this development isrnwhen the “democracy” becomes characterizedrnby one-party rule, or when formerrnopposition parties are absorbed, overtlyrnor ideologically, into a governing coalitionrn(as happened with the CDU and thernliberals in Communist Germany and asrnhappened with the rise of a one-partyrnstate in America). The formal abolitionrnof opposition is thus not even necessar’.rnThe impact of this communist patternrnof thinking in Germany became visiblernduring the process of unification. Leftwingrnagitation imposed a conversion raternfor the GDR currency in relation to therndeutsche mark of roughly 1:1.8, a raternthat led to an inflation rate of approximatelyrn350 percent in the former GDR.rnThe result was the complete disappearancernof East Germany’s manufacturingrnbase, which is now sustained by hugernpublic subsidies from the western regionrnof Germany; without government assistance,rnthe unemployment rate in the formerrnGDR would be 80 percent. In thernabsurd expectation that the taxpayer’srnburden caused by this misguided policyrncould be relieved by legislation, the politicalrnparties of the left and the centerrnagreed on an amendment that abolishedrnthe constitutional protection of property,rnas far as this protection relates to landrnthat was confiscated during the Sovietrn”property reforms” of 1945-49, when thernSoviets stole (via mass expulsion andrneven murder) more than half of the realrnestate of East Germany. In other words,rnby virtue of this constitutional amendment,rnthe federal government of unifiedrnGermany and members of the formerrnruling communist elite are now thernrightful owners of this stolen real estate,rnwhereas the ostracized class of prewarrnproperty owners, largely faithful supportersrnof West Germany’s Christian DemocraticrnParty, remains without compensation.rnIn order to suppress or at least discreditrnopposition to the communist mindsetrnnow deep-rooted in Germany, the centristrnbloc has begun harassing its criticsrnby charging them with an ofifense calledrnVolksverhetzung — meaning “instigatingrnpeople” against minorities —found inrnparagraph 130 of the penal code. Thisrnlaw penalizes anyone expressing disbeliefrnin the holocaust, in the official numberrnof holocaust victims, or in the acceptedrnmethods by which these victimsrndied. This code puts historians and evenrncritics of immigration policy—in fact,rnvirtually anyone who disagrees with anyrnpolicy of the ruling class —at risk ofrncriminal persecution. Most telling, thisrnpenal code mirrors the communists’rnBoykotthetze (meaning instigationrnagainst democratic constitutions andrnpoliticians) of the GDR constitution ofrn1949, which was designed to suppressrnany opposition to the Soviet regime (i.e.,rn”to democracy”).rnIn 1994, 2,586 people were chargedrnwith violating this code, and the numberrnof books and magazines that are nowrnprohibited by the government is mounting.rnThe punishment for “wrongrnthought” can even be more severe thanrnthe verdicts given for certain kinds ofrnmanslaughter. Mr. Udo Walendy, anrneditor of a history journal, received 15rnmonths immediate imprisonment forrn”playing down the holocaust,” in particularrnfor asserting that some state documentsrnrelating to this event had beenrnfaked. (At the same time, two GDR borderrnguards who had killed a 15-year-oldrnboy received a suspended sentence of 12rnmonths.) In the high-profile case ofrnGiinter Deckert, the leader of a smallrnright-wing party, which in 1969 had receivedrna popular vote of 4.6 percent, wasrnbrought up on criminal charges for translatingrnand praising a speech by FredrnLeuchter, who claimed the Nazis didrnnot conduct mass exterminations byrnpoison gas. When Judge Rainer Orletrnrecommended a suspended sentence forrnMr. Deckert, he was hounded off thernbench by political pressure; outraged byrnthe judge’s lenient sentence, leftists andrnliberals demanded nothing short of twornyears immediate imprisonment for Mr.rnDeckert. Ever since then, and in particularrnsince the resignation of the secondrnjudge to hear this case, German judgesrnfear retribution if they fail to throw thernbook at anyone with an “extremist” backgroundrnor “incorrect” thoughts. Conversely,rnserious crimes by left-wing terroristsrnare treated with kid gloves, as whenrnradical Turks murdered a German conservativernwith “incorrect” views. Influencedrnby leftist pressure the world over,rnthe Court found the assassins guilty notrnof murder but of a lesser offense based onrn”death caused by bodily attack.” If disbeliefrnin officially protected tenets constitutesrnsociety’s vilest offense, one wouldrnthink that only capital punishment couldrnfit this crime. Germany, however, forbidsrncapital punishment, and so it allowsrnfor the next best thing: leniency towardrnleft-wing murderers who exercise thern”right to resist” —i.e., to kill—perceivedrn”Nazis.”rnGerman civil servants risk their veryrnjobs if they express the opinion, sharedrnby many historians, that Germany wasrnnot solely responsible for the outbreak ofrnthe two world wars, or if they comparern(without equating) the holocaust to thernmass killing of German civilians by thernAllies’ air raids and by the ethnic cleansingrnof Germans in the eastern territories,rnnow annexed by Poland, Russia, and thernCzech Republic. Germany’s leftist politicalrnclass is afraid that any tolerance ofrnfree thinking would force the country tornbe more assertive in furthering legitimaternGerman interests, as in the clarificationrnof German property rights in thernterritories now annexed by neighboringrnstates. If the German government would,rnfor example, veto Poland’s inclusion inrnNATO until this human rights questionrnis resolved, it would reveal the tenuousnessrnof European unity and jeopardizernthe aim of the “democratic bloc,” which,rnwith the support of the communists, is tornbring Germany under European controlrnand force her to bankroll Europeanrnunion as a form of war compensationrnand penitence. Since the internationalistrnpolitical class of Germany wants to bernthe friend of every foreign power and foreigner,rnthe enemy has to be found fromrnwithin. “Nazifying the Germans” thusrnbecomes official German policy.rnBut to transform a “democracy” intornan oppressive ideological regime whichrnforbids opposition, critics not only havernto be outiawed; secret police are necessaryrnto discredit them as well. One majorrnfeature of the current “German way ofrndemocracy,” as the Economist describedrnit, is the establishment of 17 internal secretrnservice agencies (one at the federalrnlevel and one in each of the 16 states) designedrnto “protect the constitution.”rnWith the sole exception of the DPrn(German Party) that was part of ChancellorrnAdenauer’s coalition governmentrnduring the Cold War, there has not beenrna single right-wing party that, once closernto achieving the five percent of the voternneeded to be represented in Parliament,rn38/CHRONlCLESrnrnrn