When fear becomes the most important argument

A COMMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE GERMAN POLITICAL PARTY „DIE HEIMAT“, PETER SCHREIBER, REGARDING THE 25. ANNIVERSARY OF NINE-ELEVEN – A MUST-READ!

Hinweis an unsere deutschsprachigen Leser: Der nachfolgende Artikel des HEIMAT-Parteivorsitzenden Peter Schreiber erschien zuerst in AUFGEWACHT – DIE DEUTSCHE STIMME und ist hier in deutscher Sprache abrufbar: https://aufgewacht-online.de/25-jahre-nach-9-11-der-missbrauchte-ausnahmezustand/

On September 11, 2001, the towers of the World Trade Centre collapsed, the Pentagon burned, and nearly 3,000 people died. The images became the political Big Bang of the 21st century. From a terrorist attack emerged the „War on Terror“ – a war without a clearly defined battlefield, without a distinctly identifiable enemy, and without a recognisable end. Where the war becomes boundless, the state of emergency also threatens to become boundless.

Carl Schmitt already formulated the fundamental problem in 1922 as follows: „Sovereign is he who decides on the state of emergency.“ Rule is not only demonstrated in applying laws, but in determining the moment when the ordinary legal order is supposedly no longer sufficient. Whoever defines the danger also determines which rights recede, which powers grow, and when – or if – the normal state returns. Schmitt distinguished between a provisional dictatorship, which is meant to save the existing order, and a sovereign dictatorship, which, citing the state of emergency, creates a new order. In reality, this boundary blurs. Special powers are introduced for a limited time, extended, and finally incorporated into ordinary law. The exception disappears from the heading; its instruments remain.

History is rich with such examples. During the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln temporarily suspended the right to judicial review of detentions. Even though the Reichstag fire in 1933 was not initiated by the Nazis themselves, the „Decree for the Protection of People and State“ suspended fundamental rights and provided the tool for eliminating political opponents. France declared a state of emergency after the Paris attacks in 2015; parts of the extended police and surveillance powers later became permanent law.

And „9/11“? Became the model case. A few weeks after the attacks, the Patriot Act came into effect. Surveillance, data exchange, and investigative powers expanded massively. As early as September 18, 2001, Congress authorised the President to take military action. Added to this were Guantanamo, secret abductions, torture, and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The terror of individual perpetrators established a global state of terrorism.

Numerous inconsistencies remained. Security services had warnings before September 11, but did not coordinate them. The aviation authority and air defence initially presented their response procedures as contradictory. Particularly, the collapse of World Trade Centre 7 still arouses suspicion: The 47-stores building was not hit by any plane and collapsed in the late afternoon. These inconsistencies do not prove a state conspiracy, but they are enough to prevent the official narrative from being treated as sacrosanct. Politically, however, what mattered more was what happened after the attack.

Global „War on Terror“

For the „war on terror“ soon targeted states from which the immediate threat had not come. Fifteen of the nineteen suspected hijackers were Saudi nationals; Al-Qaeda’s leadership operated primarily from Afghanistan. Nevertheless, the USA attacked Iraq in 2003. The 9/11 Commission found no evidence of operational cooperation between Saddam Hussein’s government and Al-Qaeda. The alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were also not found; the world public was lied to. The attack provided the emotional capital for a war whose goal had long been something else.

Here, the mechanism is revealed: A specific act is transformed into a comprehensive threat narrative. The opponent is no longer a definable group of perpetrators, but a global, invisible network. Anyone who doubts the extent of the war is considered weak or an ally of the enemy. The external threat disciplines the opposition within. After 9/11, approval of President George W. Bush rose from 51 to 90 per cent at times. The enemy helped to close ranks.

George Orwell thought through this technique of rule to the end in „1984.“ The world is divided into three power blocs that are waging war against each other. The alliances change; the war remains. The Ministry of Truth rewrites newspapers and archives; „Newspeak“ narrows what can be said, and „doublethink“ makes contradiction the binding truth. The perpetual war is not even meant to be won. It explains scarcity and deprivation, justifies control, and keeps the population in uncertainty. „War is peace“ is the solution: War on the outside creates the forced peace on the inside. In addition, the daily „Two Minutes Hate“ event reinforces this. Negative feelings and powerlessness are directed at a predetermined enemy. The population is allowed to hate – but only in the direction determined by those in power.

Orwell shows that the leaders‘ interests intertwine: each needs an external enemy to secure its own rule. The blocs fight and stabilise each other at the same time. Modern warfare comes close to this image. Drones, cyberattacks, sabotage, and covert operations cause the classic front to disintegrate. A failure of an undersea cable or an attack on a data network can be part of a war – or be interpreted as such. For the public, it is hard to verify who acted. The feeling of threat remains visible. With that, the power of those who name the events grows. The technical defect becomes sabotage, the act of sabotage becomes an attack, the attack becomes part of a „hybrid war.“ The boundary between peace and war disappears. The state of emergency no longer even needs to be declared if it can be organised as a permanent interim situation.

Unclear fronts, striking interpretations

For the Federal Republic, such a scenario is emerging in relation to Russia. For years, the language has been sharpened: „turning point“, „war readiness“, „societal defence“, „hybrid threat“. Defence Minister Boris Pistorius declared that Germany must be combat-ready by 2029. The BND president warned that „we are already in the fire today.“ The federal government now describes Russia as the greatest threat to Euro-Atlantic security and plans defence spending of 3.5 per cent of the gross domestic product. This creates the impression that Germany is already in a pre-war stage. Cyberattacks, desinformation, espionage, and drone flights are being combined into elements of a conflict that has long since begun. The less clear the front, the greater the security apparatuses‘ interpretative monopoly. A German-Russian state of emergency would not have to begin with a declaration of war. A series of severe attacks on energy supply, rail traffic, or communication networks could be conceivable. Even before an independent investigation would be possible, the authorship would be politically determined. Power outages – even if they might rather be the consequences of their own failed „energy transition“ – and constant new warnings created the image of an invisible attacker.

Under such conditions, surveillance powers, controls on digital communication, bans on demonstrations, or measures against so-called disinformation could be enforced more easily. Those who criticise rearmament or alliance decisions would no longer be just political opponents, but potential amplifiers of enemy propaganda. Declaring external enemies would also mark internal ones. It should not be concealed that the same mechanism also operates on the Russian side. NATO, Western arms deliveries, and German rearmament serve there to justify repression, economic sacrifices, and „patriotic“ mobilisation. The adversary stabilises on both sides those apparatuses that claim to protect against it alone.

Such a perpetual war becomes a permanent state – and this, a means of domination. The lesson from 9/11 is therefore not just to ask about the perpetrators. It is to examine the political use of terror. The state of emergency does not begin only with the formal suspension of the law. It begins when fear becomes the most important argument, the enemy becomes a permanent necessity, and the language of war becomes the language of everyday political life. 

Peter Schreiber
Chairman of the party Die Heimat (HEIMAT)