Part 1
"Conspiracy theory": origin of a term and its use
Where does the term "conspiracy theory" come from?
Who are conspiracy theorists and who are their enemies?
What is labelled a conspiracy theory today?
What favours the emergence of conspiracy theories

Part 2
Conspiracy theory, conspiracy theorists, fake news - origins, distinctions and significance
Today, the USA is often seen as the origin and hotspot of conspiracy theories - for obvious reasons
An example from the early days of the USA
Several examples from the recent past
"Conspiracy theories" arising from mistrust of the government, military and intelligence services
The mood in the USA

Part 3
Internationally disseminated or discussed "conspiracy theories"
Why conspiracy theories arise
A conspiracy theory fills a gap
Not only in the USA - mistrust and "conspiracy theories" are now becoming increasingly widespread throughout the Western world
Preliminary conclusion: The different types of conspiracy theories briefly categorised
Fighting words against the expression of opinion and free thinking
What this has to do with Donald Trump
Conclusion and evaluation

Internationally disseminated or discussed "conspiracy theories"

There are numerous topics and specialised areas that are either dismissed as conspiracy topics or conspiracy theories altogether. Or a large number of people are not convinced by the official accounts of some topics; many people question them.
These include some very controversial and significant topics. Some very different examples are listed here:

• New World Order - NWO
• Climate policy - man-made climate change and the impact of carbon dioxide
• "The German Question" - Consequences of the war, Germany's international legal situation since 1945
• Geoengineering, influencing the weather - HAARP and "chemtrails"
• Ukraine 2014 - "Maidan revolution" and war
• Blasting of the "North Stream" Baltic Sea pipelines, 2022
• CORONA pandemic and the mRNA vaccines
• Influence of large supranational organisations or non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as the WHO, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and other, primarily transatlantic network organisations
• 9/11: The aeroplane attacks in the USA on 11 September 2001, in particular the collapse of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centres and the WTC7 building gave rise to much speculation.
• The assassination of the then US President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, November 1963 (However, in recent years it has gradually become apparent that this topic is increasingly being dealt with in detail in major, recognised media, decades later. This can be recognised as an indication that theories condemned as conspiracy theories can turn out to be a serious subject of research).

There is much more that could be mentioned in this series.
On all these topics there are several articles from established media, research by "alternative media", judgements by courts, statements by governments or politicians, documents, scientific research and studies, books, film contributions and so on. But nevertheless, all of these matters together are something like "mined terrain" - each in its own way. If you look into them in detail, you run the risk of being seen as a crank or extremist, losing your scientific reputation or even getting into serious legal trouble.

Why conspiracy theories arise

Why this mistrust, the questions and speculation, how did and do assumptions and theories come about that paint a different picture to the one officially proclaimed? Why do many people see matters and questions as important that are deliberately bypassed in the major media or, above all, by political actors?
Of course, there is no short and simple answer to these questions. Several factors must come together or a chain of events must be seen to explain how theories emerge that give rise to a conspiracy by certain circles against the masses of the population, against the country, the world public, against peace, against the truth itself, and finally solidify in a usually lengthy process.

There are several possible explanations:

• Lack of reliable and credible information, official statements are incomplete, flimsy and even seem contradictory.
• Official accounts contain obvious errors, disregard important sources and obscure connections because something is actually being concealed. (For example, the content of official protocols or similar documents is deliberately withheld from the public).
• Mistrust of sources or public representations per se, because they have proven to be deliberately misleading and false in the past and therefore have little credibility.
• Last but not least, certain individuals, institutions or companies associated with the event in question are generally regarded by the general public as dubious or not very credible due to numerous scandals or dishonesty in the past. This is a significant fact that gives rise to mistrust and speculation.

"Trust is a delicate plant; if it is destroyed, it will not come back as soon as possible."

• Otto von Bismarck. German Chancellor, Empire from 1871

In addition, several small or large events, processes and statements - apparently - go well together, complement each other:
If something that happened recently is linked to an event that happened a long time ago and makes (supposed) sense and a conclusive connection, and if the search for further connections reveals possible links that form a picture like a jigsaw puzzle, at least a basis for further assumptions and theories is created.
If people or groups repeatedly appear in comparable events, and if developments can possibly be categorised in a larger whole, the idea suggests itself that there is less chance involved and that there really are connections.

The systematic search for correlations and connections between events is justified, indeed imperative for free-thinking, critical people and scientific research. Whether this search leads to "the one truth" is initially irrelevant. What matters is whether this enquiry or questioning is legitimate. And yes, it definitely is. After all, having assumptions, theories or hypotheses that are then investigated is also a method of serious science, regardless of the discipline. And when it comes to war and peace, freedom, democracy and fundamental rights, health and important scientific explanations, then asking questions, researching and publishing must not be criminalised or denigrated in a free and constitutional society, even if it involves one-sided or ideological ideas.
In a free country, citizens must not be prohibited from critically questioning and making assumptions, whether they are academic journalists, non-academic journalists, media professionals, bloggers or YouTubers. Everyone has the right to ask questions and analyse facts. If politicians or the media do not recognise this right by denigrating and criminalising people, they are first and foremost demonstrating their own undemocratic attitude.

It can therefore be argued that discrediting and denigrating people and certain views serves to ensure that topics and contexts are not investigated and that the public is not prepared to do so.

This begs the question: "Who has a massive interest in this and what goals are being pursued to suppress theories on certain topics and the questioning of narratives?"
However, these questions will not be explored here, as it would go too far and a separate conspiracy theory would have to be created at this point.

A conspiracy theory fills a gap

Where mistrust prevails and, on top of that, representations do not appear conclusive, there is a credibility gap. If this is not just the case for one individual, but if this credibility gap arises among many people for similar reasons, then well-founded assumptions or theories of individuals fall on fertile ground and spread rapidly. Not only that: these assumptions or theories are further developed collectively through further evidence or research.

In the days before the internet, the leading circles were able to limit these unwanted questions and theses through simple measures. In addition, the possibilities for dissemination and, above all, the speed of exchange were limited anyway.
Today, in the digital age, with the internet and social media, it is of course much more difficult for governments, political parties or state institutions and their associated media to tone down uncomfortable opinions, assumptions and theories. Strictly speaking, it is impossible, unless very restrictive and diverse measures are taken. For this reason, the measures against free exchange on the Internet have been gradually tightened for several years, as we can observe in the Western world. The reason given for this is to combat hate comments or hate speech and various forms of cybercrime and to prevent "disinformation". However, this is only one side of the coin; limiting the free exchange of information is obviously another key objective.

Not only in the USA - mistrust and "conspiracy theories" are now becoming increasingly widespread throughout the Western world

So far, we have mainly been talking about the USA, where many people do not believe official accounts of major events.
But what is the situation in other countries; what is the situation in Europe? Well, a development can be recognised in some European countries. Also based on mistrust of the leading media and official statements from politicians, more and more "alternative" accounts and background research are coming to light. In many European countries, major media outlets and established politicians are complaining that large numbers of people are believing "conspiracy narratives". Those who condemn this development should be aware of one thing: Mistrust and an assumed lack of credibility lead to people no longer accepting accounts from certain sources. Those who complain loudly and condemn citizens for their "belief in conspiracies" should prioritise thinking about why an increasing number of people no longer believe the major, often pro-government media. Where does the loss of trust in established politics come from? Why do many people become so suspicious that they look elsewhere for connections, background information and explanations for events and developments, but not to the leading media and influential party politicians? These are the key questions that need to be investigated.

And no, it is certainly not the increasingly criticised and condemned internet or social media that are the cause of the emergence and spread of counter-narratives and theses that contradict the widespread representations. Modern digital media are not the sole cause; they merely amplify and accelerate like a catalyst. However, it is precisely this accelerated exchange that has a political effect.
It should not be forgotten that there is also a large and rapidly increasing number of printed books and journals that deal with certain topics in depth and, in many cases, with extensive research. It is not easy to determine whether the investigations and conclusions are correct or whether they always correspond to the truth, given the complicated questions and fields of investigation. However, this is also not possible with the evening news or articles and contributions in the leading media. And from our own experience, it must be stated here that misrepresentations, the purposeful dissemination of one-sided accounts or the dissemination of misleading narratives are part of the everyday business of the leading German media and, above all, the public service media.
But the fact that entire subject areas and issues are being suppressed and pushed aside with all their might, and their investigation and discussion loudly condemned, makes it clear to many people that these topics and issues, as well as research into them, are obviously indeed controversial and important, otherwise no such effort would be made to suppress them, according to the logical conclusion.

People who do not want to be deprived of free thought, free information and a free exchange of opinions are increasingly coming up against limits in the supposedly free, liberal Western world.

Preliminary conclusion: The different types of conspiracy theories briefly categorised

It is important to distinguish between different main categories of conspiracy theories
I. Conspiracy theories or narratives that are deliberately spread by governments, heads of state and circles close to the government or influential political parties with the help of the major media available to them in a country
The aim of these usually strategically developed and disseminated conspiracy claims is generally to influence and control the mood and opinion-forming in the country or sphere of influence concerned (communities of states, "Western world") in the best possible way. One-sided representation by omitting background information and contexts is mainly used here as an obvious method.

II. "Conspiracy theories" that arise among the population due to mistrust of published accounts. These are fuelled by the fact that statements by governments, leading politicians or the leading media are perceived as untrustworthy.

These conspiracy theories under II. must be divided into two further subcategories:

1. Conspiracy theories that can be argued and factually substantiated
   These are often accompanied by numerous references and a detailed review of official statements, documents and verifiable events and statements. Their written form and source-based elaboration often meet scientific standards. At the very least, they are valid and thus lead many people to look into them. In some cases, they are often produced by academics, other knowledgeable people, whistleblowers and well-informed journalists in a reputable manner through extensive research. This type of alleged conspiracy theory can be described as a theory in the best scientific sense and leads to tangible theses and provides a basis for further research in this area. Science thrives on the establishment and substantiation of theories, the creation of theses and their verification using scientific methods. A theory is a set of hypotheses.
   Seen in this light, the term 'conspiracy theorist' should not be an insult or a pejorative, but rather an expression of respect. As this is now apparently increasingly being noticed by those who use this term as a 'killer word', other terms are increasingly being constructed, as explained at the beginning.
2. Conspiracy theories to which the term "conspiracy myths" or "fantasy" actually applies or even "faith" as a substitute religion - a substitute for religion They are recognisably world views characterised by fantasy, religious and transcendental exaggeration, including embellishments with fantasy and mythical creatures or extraterrestrials. These tales bear the hallmarks of modern myth and religious sentiment and can even include messianic saviours from real life. The justifiability and verifiability of the content by means of comprehensible sources and factual research methods are not possible for these narratives and are not important to the followers. A basis in the "real world" can nevertheless be traced.
   "QAnon" is an example of this. There are other examples. However, this area will not be listed here as it is not the subject of the considerations. It is important to distinguish these two from 1. and 2.

The fact that these two forms of conspiracy theories are often mixed together and mentioned in the same breath in the leading media or by leading politicians and celebrities means that everything that does not correspond to the statements or narratives of the established media and politicians is systematically labelled as unobjective and dubious. Through this deliberately undifferentiated equalisation of completely different representations and forms of explanation and, above all, subject areas, everything that does not fit in with the zeitgeist and mainstream narratives is generally classified as irrational and crazy. However, this also gives more and more critical minds the impression that the mainstream, which systematically proceeds in this way, is first and foremost making itself untrustworthy.

Fighting words against the expression of opinion and free thinking

The serious, theoretical debate about conspiracy theories, "alternative truths", "disinformation" and "fake news" is proving to be complex. Delegitimisation using such terms can be seen as a perfidious, anti-democratic method directed against fundamental rights in order to banish people and their thoughts or research and theories from public discussion and brand them as despicable.
This is what is also known as "Cancel Culture" - i.e. Culture of exclusionMethod of amortisation.
The procedure of using terms and verbal stigmatisation to pigeonhole people and their opinions with derogatory labels is systematic exclusion (EXCLUSION). This exclusion involves two main steps:

1. Terms are used to create negative associations (e.g. "conspiracy theorist"), i.e. negative mental connections are generated in the recipient of the message, and
2. Negative portrayals (the devaluation of topics and people) mean that people no longer want to engage with a topic and the people who deal with it. They fear being contaminated to a certain extent.
   At the very least, this method easily catches on with people who are easy to manipulate. The term "cancel culture", which is now often used, is also appropriate for this method of exclusion. However, as this term and its use have now become a political issue, even after a few changes, it is better to Exclusion of topics and Exclusion Find use.

Whether the use of this method has actually been expanded and systematised in recent years or whether people are becoming increasingly sensitive and attentive in this regard is not the subject of discussion here. This is about the fundamentals.

In reaction to this, more and more people are asking themselves fundamental questions: Why are leading social groups aiming to exclude others from public discourse with such verbal defence?
Do we perhaps lack our own arguments and factual options to counter the content of "conspiracy narratives" and "fake news" and thus effectively refute them?
Are the alleged "conspiracy theories" so explosive and sensitive for the ruling elites because they are so close to reality that they have to be combated in this way?
Why are (opposition) groups hindered in their expression of opinion through conceptual stigmatisation?
Why do political parties, governments, media and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) go to increasing lengths to fend off certain views or criticism of conditions? Are they afraid that their own narratives, built up over the years, will easily fall apart; is it the concern that the statements and arguments of "conspiracy narrators" could dissuade many more people from "thinking correctly"?
If they are just talking nonsense, the mass of citizens should recognise it as such, shouldn't they?
This would make the "conspiracy narrators" insignificant per se.
And if these issues are being fought so resolutely, then there is probably something to them - they are obviously not so nonsensical, otherwise they would not be fought. This is considered further below.
One thing seems clear: this type of stigmatisation and exclusion is intended to deliberately narrow the corridor for publicly discussed topics and theses.
It is precisely the method, the determined and increasingly combative-aggressive way in which action is taken against statements, declarations and their authors, that gives rise to the suspicion that leading elites are very much afraid of losing their sovereignty of interpretation and opinion.

What this has to do with Donald Trump

The former US president and current presidential candidate, Donald Trumpis now seen by many, in the USA as well as in numerous other countries, as a fighter against the ruling elites, who are viewed with suspicion and mistrust. Donald Trump now has the nimbus of a fighter 'Alone against the system', against the established power structure and challenge him.
For taking on the aforementioned forces in their eyes, Trump is assured of hero status among some Americans, come what may. And it is precisely the attempts to make it impossible for Trump to run for president or to ruin his reputation through court cases and campaigns that are strengthening his support among large sections of the population. Indeed, these measures directed against Donald Trump confirm in the eyes of his supporters that a powerful system of established, ruthless power mongers is united against him.
Some go even further and see Trump as a saviour, a central figure in a change for the better.

Trump benefits considerably from the fact that he did not start any wars during his presidency and repeatedly emphasised that he wanted to end wars and prevent new ones. As president, he held talks with the heads of government of various countries instead of focussing on verbal and military armament. This strengthens his credibility, especially among pacifists. It is precisely Trump's desire for peace - whether apparent or real - that seems to earn him sympathy from large sections of the predominantly pacifist population. His campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again" expresses something that for the majority of Americans is a formula for restoring their country - a promising slogan for the future. US citizens want an end to the decades of impoverishment of the middle class, bankruptcies, deindustrialisation, drug misery, political instability, the funding of a global military apparatus with hundreds of military bases and an immeasurable over-expenditure on the military and war.

Donald Trump does not set great store by polished and well-chosen, politically correct language. He rumbles and often comes across as clumsy or fickle in his statements, but apparently few people blame him for this. For many, "Make America Great Again" expresses the hope of recreating and consolidating the USA and restoring order and justice in their own country. This also includes renewing the country's economy and industry instead of using globalisation and wars to help individuals achieve immeasurable wealth and impoverish the masses, as has been the case in recent decades under the ostensible liberals. It also expresses the desire to put the USA at the centre of things politically in a different way - not to present itself worldwide as the guardian of values and democracy while constantly waging questionable wars and destabilising other countries. Many would like to focus on their own country and the well-being of the US population.
Whether Trump will be able to hold his own as president if he is elected and whether he is serious about all his statements is, of course, unknown. In any case, the sympathy and trust that people place in him are understandable, provided that one is willing to take an honest look at the situation and developments in the USA and to analyse how citizens feel and the situation of the United States.
One thing must be emphasised: It is not clear whether Donald Trump has damaged democracy and divided society or whether, on the contrary, his success thrives on the US democracy that was damaged much earlier. Trump is accused of many things. However, the really big mistakes were made in the USA many decades earlier.

Conclusion and opinion

As explained above, the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" are fighting terms that are used to specifically marginalise people, topics and theories. Various derivations of "conspiracy theory" are also used for this marginalisation, such as "conspiracy narrative", "conspiracy myth", "conspiracy ideology" and "conspiracy fantasy". Related stigmatising neologisms are also used. Furthermore, marginalisation is carried out in an undifferentiated manner.
In the same breath, supposedly "right-wing" critics of party or government action are regularly accused of hostility towards democracy or endeavours against the state. The fact that criticised politicians brand the rejection of their policies and opposition per se as hostile to the state and democracy in turn undermines democratic principles themselves. When one's own party and political goals are equated with the state, this reveals a mixture of megalomania and a tendency towards totalitarianism. This is how oppositional activity is damaged. Opposition is systematically penalised in this way. Fighting opposition groups is a characteristic of totalitarian endeavours.

There is a lot of talk about media literacy. It is essential for media literacy not to let those who are part of the media business and who are obviously defending their power and authority of interpretation lead the way when choosing a medium and sources of information.
Media literacy and maturity - in the sense of Immanuel Kant's definition of "enlightenment" - includes being able to search for information independently and not being dictated to.

Immanuel Kant (German philosopher, 1724 to 1804) explained:

"Enlightenment is man's exit from his self-inflicted immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's intellect without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-inflicted if the cause of it is not a lack of understanding, but a lack of resolution and courage to make use of it without the guidance of another.„

* * *

It is important for citizens who want to gain knowledge in order to form their own opinion to differentiate between fantasies, propaganda and serious theories. This applies regardless of whether it is an offer from the large, established media or so-called alternative media. There is one thing media consumers should never do: let politicians and the major mainstream media tell them what the right source of information and the truth is and which sources they should never trust. In doing so, they voluntarily surrender their maturity - they remain in self-inflicted immaturity. Obedience and maturity are mutually exclusive.

Anyone who uses grand gestures and strong words to devalue the representations and views of others is pursuing a goal. And when party politicians, government circles and leading media - especially state-affiliated media organisations - tell us what is right and what is wrong, we need to listen up.

Opposition that is convenient and manageable for those exercising power is not real opposition. If only the comfortable opposition is tolerated and other points of view are fought against, this is tantamount to Synchronisation. Dealing with opinions and opposition in this way is against democracy and the rule of law. But what then remains of a political and social system when only certain opinions freely expressed or customised scientific research published and only tamed opposition is tolerated? The answer must be: it remains Totalitarianism.

And if a conspiracy theory really is a conspiracy theory in the best sense of the word and presents a comprehensive conspiracy, how do we deal with it? Let's assume that, in extreme cases, such a conspiracy theory appears implausible due to its scope and far-reaching nature, because it goes beyond the imaginable.
Imagine that the circumstances and alleged conspiratorial events described in this way - if they are real - may have a negative impact on your own life, may have considerable detrimental effects on social freedom, self-determination, war and peace, health, security, modest prosperity, the future of coming generations - do you close your eyes to this just because others say so? Would it be sensible to look the other way? Or is it perhaps better to take a second look and then make your own judgement? - Vigilance is always important.

This is certainly not a call to chase after every pipe dream and every new fantasy. No, on the contrary: the aim is to acquire the maturity to take a look for oneself and to form a picture of what is probable, plausible and significant and what, on the other hand, is certainly nonsense. It's about the simple basic principle: if I allow the influential and opinion multipliers, who are lobbyists in their own right, to explain to me what I can and cannot regard as right and true, I voluntarily remain immature.

If a complex thesis is based on a large number of well-researched sources and is therefore comprehensible, you must not allow lobbyists and propagandists to persuade you that it is all nonsense. We should at least consider the possibility that there are connections, events and processes that we did not even suspect before. If we allow ourselves to be persuaded that we should not concern ourselves with such matters, then we are no more acting responsibly than a trained animal.

There are also other aspects. As we have seen in recent years, numerous supposedly nonsensical conspiracy theories have subsequently been confirmed as true or realistic and what we were told emphatically by the mainstream in politics and the media has turned out to be untrue.
Those who doubted these official accounts and paid attention to "stupid conspiracy theories" were on the right side more than once. This has become particularly clear in recent months in Germany (and in some other countries) in connection with COVID-19 and the extensive measures taken to prevent the spread of the virus. It is gradually becoming apparent that the measures were in fact disproportionate and mostly ineffective, that many of them caused more damage than the disease itself and that many of the images that were supposed to scare us were not taken in context or were incorrectly commented on and certainly deserved to be labelled "fake news". It is now apparent that the supposedly helpful vaccinations, which we were forced to receive by means unworthy of a state governed by the rule of law, were virtually ineffective. However, numerous terrible vaccine injuries were caused, which were previously recognised or even predicted by medical experts. These medical professionals and those who initiated and evaluated investigations into the consequences of vaccination were ridiculed, criminalised and censored wherever possible.

The situation is similar with face masks, which were initially labelled as unnecessary and ineffective by the political and scientific mainstream until around April 2020. The background to this was that there were very few face masks in Germany, and the few that were available were to be reserved for medical staff. The fact that there was a shortage was concealed by claiming that they were ineffective anyway, which was true.

Initially, it was said that face masks were ineffective (which was the most honest thing to say), then there were calls for people to make their own face masks, or small domestic companies switched their production to masks. However, there was no business to be made for key people. In the second half of 2020, we in Germany were suddenly bombarded with studies and supposedly new findings that face masks were absolutely essential to prevent infection (of others) and stop the spread of COVID-19. Laws and regulations were passed that forced us to wear masks everywhere in public spaces, even children and sick people... - first simple medical masks, which were sometimes distributed in public places, then FFP-2 masks, which are not suitable for meditative purposes.

And those who opposed this, who had previous explanations for the ineffectiveness in mind or knew of new studies that also emphasised the health risks of the prescribed masks, were ridiculed. People who suspected or proved fraud and deception were ridiculed. But that was not all: it turned out that parliamentarians from some parties and their relatives were making a considerable profit from the import and sale of face masks. "Mask deals" were raking in tens of millions. It doesn't take long to wonder who was on the right side here: the suspicious or the gullible.

People were maltreated with nonsensical, unscientific and inhumane measures. The considerable risks that these new vaccinations entailed for many were hushed up and minimised. Scientists and experts from various disciplines - virologists, epidemiologists, psychologists, paediatricians, mathematicians and others - warned and predicted in great detail that the state bans and coercive measures were pointless and what would happen and what would occur. They were ostracised, ridiculed, censored and in some cases legally and socially cornered, lost their reputation or even their jobs and - and this is crucial here - what these people said was either hushed up, censored away or dismissed as a conspiracy theory.

Now, with hindsight, these admonishers and critics have been proved right; it is gradually becoming clearer that the alleged conspiracy theories were correct on a number of key points. A large number of victims of this propaganda are now suffering from severe vaccine injuries. Many of these vaccine injuries go unreported because doctors do not recognise or do not want to see the links between the COVID vaccination and the illness that often follows months later. In addition, the reporting system for vaccination injuries in Germany is questionable. Those affected also do not want to recognise a possible connection between a serious illness and the COVID vaccination. And so, especially in Germany, possible suspected cases of vaccination damage are often not reported to the responsible authorities (e.g. in Germany Paul Ehrlich Institute: Notification forms / Online notification - Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (pei.de)) are not indicated. A high number of unrecognised vaccine injuries are to be expected. The fact that vaccinating doctors now have to reckon with legal consequences because they did not adequately inform patients about the possible risks of the new, only provisionally authorised vaccines is also leading to a certain reluctance to report suspected cases. The issue of serious vaccine damage is being dealt with by numerous courts in Germany; the lawsuits are usually dismissed. Alleged corona vaccination damage in court (deutschlandfunk.de); Duty of doctors to provide information for Covid-19 vaccinations with an mRNA vaccine (beck.de) and others. For the plaintiffs concerned and their lawyers, it is almost impossible to prove "causality giving rise to liability".

There is a German proverb: "Trust is good - control is better." This can serve as a guideline when it comes to dealing with the media and news. A responsible citizen does not trust blindly, but tries to obtain certainty as far as possible. This is especially true when it comes to health, freedom or the question of peace and war. Restricting information options by denigrating and marginalising opinions and people by using defamatory terms primarily deprives citizens of information options.

Click here for part 1

and here to part 2.

Der Beitrag „Kampfbegriffe gegen die Opposition“ – Teil 3 erschien zuerst auf Advocatus Veritas.

by K. Mader, March 2024

Introduction

The new ideas of John Locke and Baron Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, known as Montesquieu for short, had a significant influence on political and social developments in Europe and later in other parts of the world in connection with the ideas and theories of the Enlightenment.
The modern principles of a constitutional state with a certain separation of powers and the rule of law are reflected after the independence of the USA. The 13 founding states on the east coast of the USA drew up a constitution modelled on the English Bill of Rights from the 17th century as well as the constitution of the "Republic of the United Netherlands". "The Republic of the Seven United Netherlands", as they called themselves in full, was founded as early as 1581, during the Netherlands' eighty-year war of independence against the Spanish Habsburgs. However, its constitution was not a coherent constitutional text regulating the state order. Due to its structure as a federal union into a federal state, the early Netherlands was a suitable model for the USA when it was founded. The Constitution of the United States of America was adopted in September 1787 and came into force for the 13 united founding states in March 1789.

However, the separation of powers has only been realised to a limited extent in the USA. Instead, the principle of "checks and balances" was applied, which is based less on a separation of the three classic state powers and more on an interlocking of powers with mutual control, as in almost all Western countries today. A consistently realised separation of powers is referred to in English as a "separation of powers" or "division of powers". It is important to note that the separation of powers according to Montesquieu's theoretical guidelines is not consistently realised in almost all states. However, this is more clearly realised in some countries than in others, where at least the judiciary is independent, which must be seen as a core concern based on experience and theory.

We are told or taught as a matter of course and without critical scrutiny that Western countries have an adequate separation of powers that fully satisfies the principles of the rule of law. But is this really the case? What is the situation in the Federal Republic of Germany in this respect? The following three-part article will get to the bottom of this.

Part 1: The history of the separation of powers and the modern constitutional state

A look at the history of modern congestion theory

Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieuborn in January 1689 in a castle near Bordeaux, was a lawyer, writer, philosopher and state theorist and travelled through numerous European countries. Charles-Louis de Secondat stayed in England for several years.

He was a well-known thinker of the The Age of Enlightenment and was guided by the ideals of the still young humanism. He is regarded as one of the leading founders of modern state theory. It describes the separation of the three essential powers of the state to balance rule on the one hand and the ruled citizens on the other as a fundamental component of a constitutional state. Montesquieuas he is known for short, thus creates an alternative concept to the French Absolutism of his time.

The Frenchman Montesquieu was inspired by the Englishman John Locke (1632-1704), who at the end of the 17th century had studied the doctrines of the state in detail. Locke assumed that the abuse of power could only be prevented by the Government power or state authority divided into different hands lies.
Only one Constitution and equally binding for all Lawsalso for the monarch or the government, as well as the Separation of state powers limited the powers of the head of state and prevent arbitrary rule.

In his work "The spirit of the laws" ("De l'esprit des lois"), Montesquieu published his theory of the state in 1748, which is still known today and which independent state powerswhich control and respect each other, as significant. To this end, he first analyses three forms of rule: Democracy, Monarchy, Despotism.

According to Montesquieu's doctrine, the three powers must, in the exercise of their activities independently of each other and must not be subject to external constraints. The three branches of government and their tasks are probably familiar to most people from school lessons. They are the legislative power (Legislature), the executive power or the Government and administration (Executive) and the judicial poweri.e. judges or courts (Judiciary). In a modern state, the task of legislative power generally falls to parliament. Bills are introduced for discussion and voting either by parliament itself or by the government.

What are the characteristics and principles of a constitutional state?

In this paper, the focus will be on the Separation of powers as a essential characteristic of the rule of law laid down. In order to illustrate the importance of the separation of powers for the rule of law as a prerequisite for the stability of such a state, other foundations of a constitutional state are summarised and briefly explained below.
A constitutional state is a form of government in which the state structure is designed to limit the power of the state and state organs by means of constitutional principles and in which the laws are equally binding for all citizens and institutions, including the government. Various features and a coherent organisational structure ensure that there is no slippage into a Arbitrary rulewhich Despotismis prevented.

It must be ensured that no group of people can gain advantages over others or is systematically granted such advantages, or that certain citizens are disadvantaged. The emergence of totalitarianism and dictatorship can only be prevented through consistent adherence to the principles of the rule of law.
There are certain indispensable features that characterise a constitutional state.
The supremacy of lawIn a constitutional state, the law is above all else. Everyone, including all institutions and the government, is bound by the law and must abide by it.

A constitutionIt regulates the internal order of a state and sets the framework for legislation and the relationship between state organs and citizens.
The protection of fundamental rights: Fundamental rights are enshrined in the constitution and form the constitutional basis. A constitutional state guarantees the respect and protection of the fundamental rights of all citizens equally. This must apply to both legislation and the administration of justice.

The separation of powersA constitutional state has a separation of powers. The executive, the legislature and the judiciary have clear, different functions and are institutionally and personally separated from each other in order to ensure mutual control and a balance of power.

Publicity and transparencyTransparent governance and open access to information promote accountability and democratic control of government.

No arbitrary exercise of powerThe government, its officials and all state institutions must not exercise their power arbitrarily. Instead, they must abide by the law and act in accordance with the constitution.

Independent courtsIndependence of the judiciary is an indispensable feature of the principle of separation of powers and is also a prerequisite for the rule of law. The courts are independent both in terms of their staffing and their working methods, whereby they are subject to the constitution and the law. Arbitrary justice must be ruled out.

Legal certaintyThe laws are predictable, in line with the fundamental rights of the state and the prevailing moral understanding among citizens. Legislation must not run unreasonably counter to citizens' security of action and planning. Legal norms should not be changed frequently and unpredictably in order to ensure trust and predictability in all areas of life. Laws are formulated clearly and comprehensibly without leaving room for ambiguity or room for interpretation, and laws are applied equally to all citizens in the administration of justice. Changes should only be made in exceptional cases and with appropriate transitional periods.

The following applies Prohibition of retroactivityThis means that laws may not be applied retroactively to ensure that citizens are only held accountable for actions that were already prohibited or regulated by law at the time of the offence.

Roman law had a significant influence on the development of legal systems in many countries, particularly initially in continental Europe. Our current understanding of legal certainty is characterised by this. Further characteristics of legal certainty are

• Right to due process - Every citizen has the right to a balanced, fair and impartial trial in court when faced with criminal charges or other legal disputes. "This also includes the right to be heard. This means that everyone in court proceedings has the right to comment on the allegations, present evidence, call witnesses and consult a legal adviser. The right to be heard also applies in criminal proceedings. The defendant must be given the last word before sentencing so that they can comment on the allegations made." (https://www.juraforum.de/lexikon/rechtsstaat)
• Legal protection and legal remedies - A constitutional state ensures that citizens whose rights have been violated have access to effective remedies to redress these violations and obtain justice.
• Proportionality - The principle of proportionality states that the means used by state authority must be proportionate to the end pursued. This means that the state should not use disproportionate means in the fulfilment of its tasks and the pursuit of its goals that do not justify the goal or have disproportionate side effects. The principle of proportionality also applies to police action. Coercive measures may only be taken by the police in exceptional cases or by court order (ibid.). The actions of the police or other regulatory authorities are subject to the law; arbitrary actions are thus excluded.

Freedom of information and expressionPress and media relations Media freedom are also important components of the rule of law. These enable citizens to obtain information from freely accessible sources without hindrance, to express their opinions and views without fear of persecution and to take a critical look at political decisions in general, the government or the situation in the country or worldwide. In a state governed by the rule of law, citizens are also allowed to disseminate relevant information and views. There is no censorship and there are no negative consequences for the dissemination of news, knowledge, expertise and opinions, even if they are based less on verifiable facts than on assumptions or subjective perceptions. Limits are set by law; however, these limits must be broad enough not to undermine the fundamental right to freedom of opinion and speech. There must be no censorship "through the back door" by means of disproportionately restrictive legislation. These limits can be set, for example, by defamatory allegations against certain individuals and clearly demonstrable calls for violence.

Media are obliged to exercise journalistic diligence, but not to adopt a particular stance towards the government or political or social groups and must not be subject to the constraint of being bound by opinions. Today, this applies regardless of whether they belong to the traditional print or radio media, large publishing houses, the public, state-affiliated sector, smaller media companies or freelance journalists, who can now also be found on the Internet and often use the new or new media. alternative media shape. Small and independent media companies must not be allowed to operate in favour of large or even state-owned media companies (in Germany Institutions under public law) are disadvantaged.

These characteristics are fundamental to the functioning of a constitutional state and ensure that the government and administrations act within the law and respect and protect the dignity, rights and freedoms of citizens.

The time before the rule of law, Montesquieu's ideas

The outstanding objectives described by Montesquieu are, on the one hand, the greatest possible political Freedom of citizens and beyond that the Prevention of despotismthat is, arbitrary rule, as it was during his lifetime in the Absolutism France was not only manifested there. The time of the Feudalism in Europe, from the early Middle Ages until well into the modern era, was characterised by a society of estates in which arbitrariness or despotism could emanate from individuals, their confidants or those in authority (e.g. feudal lords).

There was usually little or no provision for limiting or regulating the exercise of power. Dependent estates, such as peasants, thus lived as unfree. The exercise of governmental power, from legislation, instructions for imprisonment and interrogation (including torture) to the administration of justice or sentencing and instructions for execution could be issued by one person or a group, a committee. The same applied to state finances, which were usually inextricably linked to the private assets of a ruler, the levying and collection of taxes or the conduct of war. This was supplemented by a further system of rule and oppression: that of the church.

This religious rule and exercise of power were closely interwoven with state rule by regents or feudal lords. According to Montesquieu's ideal Abuse of power prevented and arbitrariness up to and including state terror. This objective must still be valid today in order to prevent a state from "tilting" towards Despotism or totalitarianism to prevent it. There is hardly any state structure that is inherently and forever firmly established and immune to developing from a constitutional state that guarantees freedom into a despotism.

Revolutions led to a new despotism and a reign of terror

Although this is a bit of a stretch, one thing should not go unmentioned. This explanation of the history and times of absolutism should not obscure one thing: The end of absolutism and feudal rule through Revolutions by no means brought about redemption or liberation and a constitutional state. The French Revolution of 1789 paved the way for the great terror of the Jacobin revolutionaries after a first great bloodbath in which many innocent people fell victim. One name is probably familiar to everyone in the context of tyranny: Maximilien de Robespierre, who was the head of the Reign of Terror from 1790 until his violent death in 1794.

As a result of the Revolution, the hell of arbitrary rule broke loose on a large part of the French population; without proper interrogation or trial, people were imprisoned on mere suspicion or on the grounds of class, executed en masse and subjected to extremely cruel warfare against French regions. People were tortured to death; fanaticism and barbarism were indescribable. From the revolution came the chauvinistic nationalism and War across Europe emerged. And as a paradox of history, it later crowned itself Napoleon Bonaparte became emperor in 1804. As a result of the revolution, which was directed against the monarchy, France now had an emperor instead of an emperor. Kings one Emperor.

The Russian Revolution was no less absurd in its aftermath; the Russian tsar was followed by bloodshed and the arbitrariness of the Bolsheviks and the construction of the Soviet Union. For decades, this was different from the time in Tsarist Russia, but in memory of the millions of victims of this communist tyranny, one can by no means speak of a better state or progress.

Violent revolutions lead from misery to ruin - as much as some may glorify them, they do not bring about a constitutional state.

*

Nor is there liberty if the judicial power is not separated from the legislative and executive powers. ... All would be lost if one and the same man or body, either of the most powerful or of the nobles or of the people, exercised the following three powers: enacting laws, putting public resolutions into practice, judging crimes and private disputes.

• Charles-Louis de Montesquieu, "De l'Esprit des Lois" (From the spirit of the laws")

*

The publication of his work "The spirit of the laws" triggered fierce, controversial debates at the time. The Vatican placed the book on a prohibition index. Montesquieu wrote a defence. The Prussian king Frederick the Great was fond of Montesquieu and his work. The The spirit of enlightenment was highly respected in the Prussian royal family. This had a personal history:
The King Frederick II, the Greatused to work with the French philosopher Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire from 1736 until his death in 1778, characterised by occasional mutual admiration and inspiration, but also occasional disappointment and dislike. Voltaire spent extended periods of time at the court of the Prussian king. In this way, Enlightenment ideas and the ideals of the Humanism It entered German territory long before the French Revolution and Napoleon Bonaparte's destructive French military campaigns through Europe following the Revolution, which paradoxically led to the violent spread of these ideals with weapons, barbarism and destruction.

The theory of the past and the reality of today

At school, in universities or on other occasions, we citizens are usually told that the separation of powers has been implemented in today's modern Western states, that it determines the political reality in our countries and thus manifests the rule of law. But if you take a closer look at the reality and examine the specialist literature on the subject, a different picture emerges: powers are not separate, but interact with each other in an interlocking or interrelated manner; numerous functionaries of one power also belong to another power in personal union or exert a significant influence on another state power.

On closer examination, it must become clear that the mere existence of the state powers defined by Montesquieu and the reference to his theory does not automatically lead to the realisation of the Separation of these state powers. On the contrary, if we take a closer look at the political reality of some modern states, we can become disillusioned. Whether this linking and interaction of different powers even fulfils the claim of separation of powers and to what extent the reality of linking and interlocking is even necessary for the functioning of the complex processes of modern democratic states is the subject of occasional theoretical and academic debates, mostly ignored by the media, citizens and educational institutions.

Of course, any discussion of this should not neglect factors that are of considerable importance in state and society today, but which did not exist in the times of John Locke and Montesquieu. The main factors to be mentioned here are

• political parties,

• Media,

• supranational organisations (e.g. EU, UN, NATO),

• Non-governmental organisations (NGOs)

and diverse international interdependencies and dependencies.

All of these have an influence on the formation of opinion and also on the actions of state institutions. Looked at closely, these factors have an impact on the state of the rule of law. Their influence on the basic idea of the separation of powers and the stability of the rule of law cannot be regarded as favourable without further ado.

In addition, in almost all European states we have to deal with further, often country-specific peculiarities and with state organs or institutions that were not included by Locke and Montesquieu. What is important today and must be considered in the modern constitutions of democratically organised states in addition to the three powers of the state are:

the electorate or the citizens as sovereigns, secret services, public prosecutors.

In addition, for more than 200 years Growing importance of mediaInitially printed matter, i.e. pamphlets or regularly published newspapers, today largely telemedia (broadcasting) and the Internet with growing importance.

Compared to the 18th or early 19th century, universal and equal suffrage is a characteristic of modern Western state systems. Today, no class or property standards are applied to the right to vote or the weighting of individual votes. Although the electorate is not an organ of the state in the strict sense, as a constitutional sovereign, the citizens entitled to vote as voters theoretically play a key role in the modern state.

One can therefore conclude: The modern state structure with its multi-layered state organs and institutions as well as the development of the media have led to increasing complexity compared to the 18th century. However, the principles laid down by Montesquieu still apply to the executive, the legislature and the judiciary and must not be watered down beyond recognition. The argument that the situation today is not comparable with the past and that a separation of powers is therefore no longer feasible, out of date or even dispensable leads to dangerous representations.

Dangers for the rule of law today

It is a deceptive illusion to assume that firmly established and stable rule of law structures are fixed for all time in modern states. Constant vigilance on the part of citizens and reminders are necessary to ensure that the fine line between an acceptable state and despotism is not crossed and a fall is not imminent.

Manipulation and "opinion control" of the mostly uninformed and gullible majority pose great dangers. The naivety of the masses and skilfully generated and exploited irrationality can lead a society in the wrong direction.

If citizens and, above all, the members of state institutions themselves lack knowledge about the rule of law and the separation of powers and the desire to feel obliged to abide by them, there is a particular danger for a state. A modern state needs barriers against such a development. The essential barrier against disastrous developments should first and foremost be set by a pronounced division of state powers.

The following articles deal in detail with deficiencies in the separation of powers and the rule of law. Click here for part 2 and to Part 3.

Der Beitrag Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland am Scheideweg – Ohne Gewaltenteilung kein Rechtsstaat – Teil 1 erschien zuerst auf Advocatus Veritas.