tional scrutiny” what it describes as arnubiquitous right-wing threat to Germanrndemocracy. Its reports dwell on the socialrnpathologies, not yet sufficiently addressedrnby the welfare state, which havernresulted in “legions of skinheads” andrntheir intellectual supporters.rnGroth and Nordbrueh recount horrorrnstories about political officials beingrnforced to resign for not sounding p.c.rnenough, and highlight the bizarre case ofrnPhil ipp Jenninger, the acting president ofrnthe German Bundestag who had to leavernhis post in 1988 after speaking unacceptablyrnabout Nazi treatment of the Jews.rnOn the 50th anniversary oi Kristallnacht,rnJenninger made the mistake of not deliveringrnthe conventional outpouring ofrnGerman contridon in the ritualized way.rnUnlike former Bundespresident Richardrnvon Weizsacker, who repeatedly ofiFeredrnbanalities about unconditional Germanrnatonement while reminding audiencesrnthat “Germany has now the freest state inrnits history,” Jenninger decided to impersonaternin a speech the kind of mindset tornwhich the Nazis had appealed. ThoughrnGerman Jewish leaders praised this performance,rnJenninger nonetheless wasrnwidely attacked in the press as “insensitivelyrntheatrical.” As punishment, he wasrnhounded out of national politics whilernexpressing regrets about his misguidedrnacting. Thereafter, the expression of Germanrnnational guilt, especially by ChristianrnDemocrats, never deviated from thernprescribed wooden language.rnNordbrueh and Groth are fulh^ awarernof the American contribution to this oppressivernsituation. Both cite Americanrninfluence on German political culture,rnand the dustcover of Groth’s book includesrnthe sentence: “Dictatorship has arnnew name, political correctness, America’srnlatest attempt to improve thernworld.” In the 18th century, it was believedrnthat Europe caught cold whenrnFrance sneezed; now Europe is growingrndelirious from a specifically Americanrnreign of pseudo-virtue.rnRay Honeyford’s study of the EnglishrnCommission on Racial Equality isrnboth the weakest and the most compellingrnof these three briefs. Its weaknessesrninclude awkward organization,rnplodding prose, and desperate attemptsrnto appear moderate. According to Honeyford,rnuntil recently England representedrnthe fulfillment of John Locke’s contractualrnunderstanding of human societ}’,rnbut the country has been set adrift by thernCRE, which has grown in power since itsrncreation in 1976.rnThe Commission, by now made uprnlargely of nonwhites, has extended itsrnpurview to all kinds of cultural and socialrnactivities. It has the power to censor arnwide variety of publications, oversee thernbook selection and holdings of public libraries,rnand inflict penalties on thosernfound guilty of abetting hatred againstrnracial and ethnic minorities. The Commissionrncan force business and educationalrnestablishments to engage in costlyrnlitigation if its members, on whatever pretext,rndecide to launch an investigation.rnAlthough many of the charges are thrownrnout of court, the litigation can ruin thernplaintiff’s finances and reputation.rnWhile the present Commission hasrnroots in an earlier one established by Parliamentrnin the 1960’s, it also has extendedrnpowers granted by the more recent act.rnThe Commission is authorized to censorrnpublications or go after pri’ate enterprisesrnon the basis of “hate-inciting effects.”rnThe accused does not have to have incitedrnpolitically incorrect feelings deliberately:rnAll that must be adduced is thernprobable effect of a communication orrnact in order for the CRE to intervene.rnThis assault on English liberty has gonernon under Tory, as well as Labour, governments.rnThe Iron Lady clobberedrncommunist-dominated unions but didrnnot take on the more powerful victimologicalrninterests embedded in her ownrngovernment.rnNeither Germany nor England has arnFirst Amendment, which occasionallyrncan be successfully invoked to protect therndissenting opinions of those on the right.rnThis does not mean that the politicallyrnincorrect in the United States face nornprofessional or social obstacles —nor thatrnthey are entirely free of government harassment.rnBut it is still unlikely thatrn18,000 journalists and educators wouldrnbe dragged before courts in the UnitedrnStates on charges of “popular incitement”rnfor challenging governmentallyrnestablished “truths.” When large numbersrnof German authors were foundrnguilty of “propaganda crimes” and imprisoned,rneven America’s flagship p.c.rnnewspaper, the New York Times (Marchrn27, 1998), expressed shock at the destructionrnof German liberty. More Germanrnintellectuals are now incarcerated by thernGerman state than under East Germanrncommunist rule in the I980’s. Nor is itrnlikely that our liberal newspapers wouldrnopenly applaud the vandalization of ideologicallyrndissident publications. Whenrna conservative nationalist newsmagazine,rn]unge Freiheit, had its editorial office inrnPotsdam firebombed, adversarial journalistsrncheered this act as a preemptivernstrike on a returning German past.rnIn my view, the ideological lunacy setrnloose in Germany is not related necessarilyrnto an ancient German heritage: It isrnthe aftermath of the guilt and opprobriumrnwhich Western public opinion hasrnlaid upon the German nation. A morallyrnconcerned (and among Protestants, obsessivelyrnmoralizing) people, Germans —rneven those who try to “contextualize” thernholocaust—are preoccupied with thern”burden” of the German past. Like itsrnsubjects, the government feels itself to bernunder constant scrutiny and is thereforernless concerned about the freedom of Germansrnthan about what the Western liberalrnpress might say about German “rightwingrnextremism.” Shame as well as guiltrndrives this repressive politics.rnIn England, however, the repression isrneven more striking. A nation without arnNazi past and widely viewed as the cradlernof constitutional government, the Englishrnare now behaving as insanely asrntheir Teutonic cousins. They have allowedrntheir socieU to be taken o’er notrnonly by an expanding managerial staternbut by the enforcers of multiculturalism.rnAnd unlike the Germans who glumly putrnup with the politics of contrition, the anglophonernworld, including British Canadarnand the LJnited States, is into p.c. withrna passion. WTiile the stolid German oppositionrnrisks imprisonment by tweakingrnpublic censors, the English conservativernestablishment bubbles with enthusiasmrnfor minority outreach and for “moderate”rnmulticulturalism.rnOf the English-speaking countries,rnCanada has by far the worst situation.rnWhen the Human Rights Code was introducedrnin Ontario in 1994, imposingrnon that hapless province a severe censorshiprnin the name of “human rights,” thernresponse of the conservative and liberalrnpress was predictable. Ontarians werernurged to “assist” the government in combatingrn”prejudice” in all forms.rnUnlike the Germans, English-speakingrnpeoples live in triumphant “democracies”rnwhich have won global strugglesrnand are pursuing global missions. Inrnthese, one encounters “facilitators” everywhere,rneven among designated critics.rnOpposition becomes increasingly inconceivablernto the extent that subjects imaginernthat they rule. crnAUGUST 1999/29rnrnrn