Germany's SPD Eliminates Kinship Ties from its Party Platform's Talk of 'Family'

The SPD returns to the world-revolutionary (Trotsky-ite) and racist (Marx, Engels) roots of Socialism, thus offering German voters a true choice at the polls--for the first time in decades

Meanwhile in new normal™ Germany, the upcoming (snap) federal elections are making themselves felt. While the campaign isn’t as pronounced these days—it’s too close to Christmas—some absurdities are quite noticeable already:

No, I’m not talking about the ongoing gaslighting about the AfD (although that is quite something to behold), but the further radicalisation of what once used to be an entirely mainstream left-of-centre faction. I’m, of course, talking about the Social Democratic Party of Germany, which has gone ‘all-in’ against reality, reason, and, yes, biology.

Behold the SPD’s proposed ‘governing program’ (orig. Regierungsprogramm), i.e., their party platform for the upcoming elections, in particular the definition of ‘family’:

Family—that’s where people look out for each other and stand up for each other. Family means being connected and secure. Family—behind this is a value system of responsibility, care, love and respect. Family holds us up, gives us protection, strength and courage for the sometimes harsh outside world. Our democracy is also rooted in the family, because everyone is heard in the family council, everyone have a voice. A society is characterised by how well families are doing.

And that, dear readers, is a ‘definition™’ of ‘family™’ unconnected to terms like, e.g., father, mother, child, or any kind of kinship ties, blood relations, and the like.

Just like that, the SPD moves from reality to ‘reality™’, much like a democratic republic has morphed into ‘our democracy™’.

Now, I wouldn’t have thought that we’d need to prescribe these key notions and terms into the constitution or the like, but given the fact that a sizeable part of the political establishment has obviously gone nuts suggests that doing so might need to be considered. If doing so would help is, of course, a different question.

We note, in passing, that the word ‘mother’ (Mutter) appears but twice in the 66 page-strong election manifesto; the word ‘father’ (Vater) is entirely absent.

What Does the German Grundgesetz Say?

Funny that, the German de facto constitution, known as the Basic Law or Grundgesetz, does note blood and kinship ties on several occasions, and we now turn to the Bundestag’s Research Office (orig. Wissenschaftlicher Dienst) to learn a bit about them.

In a compilation from 6 Feb. 2019, entitled, ‘On the Terms “German People”, “Germans”, and “German ethnicity/nationhood” in the Grundgesetz’ (orig. Zu den Begriffen ‘deutsches Volk’, ‘Deutsche’ und ‘deutsche Volkszugehörigkeit’ im Grundgesetz), the following is noted (references omitted; emphases mine):

The terms ‘German people’ or ‘Volk’ are used in the preamble to the Basic Law (Grundgesetz—GG) and in Art. 1 para. 2, Art. 20 para. 2, Art. 21 para. 1, Art. 38 para. 1 and Art. 56 GG. The terms refer to the people of the Federal Republic of Germany. The Federal Constitutional Court has stated the following about the composition of the people:

‘According to the Basic Law, the people, from whom state authority in the Federal Republic of Germany emanates, is formed by German citizens and the persons deemed equal to them pursuant to Art. 116 para. 1 [Basic Law].’

Accordingly, the composition of the people of the state is based on Article 116 para. 1 of the Basic Law and the simple statutory law on citizenship.

So, those who hold German citizenship are Germans.

Yet, given Germany’s twisted modern history, this isn’t where this statutory clarification ends. Note that ‘Germany…is formed by German citizens and the persons deemed equal to them’.

Thankfully, Art. 116 (1) of the Grundgesetz spells out, in quite clear terms, what is meant by those ‘deemed equal to’ (orig. gleichgesetellten Personen) German citizens:

Article 116(1) of the Basic Law contains the legal definition of who is a German under the Basic Law:

‘Subject to any other statutory provision, a German within the meaning of this Basic Law is anyone who has German nationality or has been admitted as a refugee or displaced person of German ethnicity or as their spouse or descendant in the territory of the German Reich as of 31 December 1937.’

Germans are therefore, on the one hand, all persons who have German citizenship in accordance with the German Nationality Act (StAG). On the other hand, persons without German citizenship are also Germans if they have been admitted to Germany* as refugees or displaced persons (or as their spouse or descendants) of German ethnicity.

These are referred to as ‘status Germans’ [Statusdeutsche, instead of Volksdeutsche, as the National Socialists would have it]…Whether they are also considered Germans under international law is partly disputed. Since status Germans have been expressly included in numerous international treaties and are often treated as German nationals in the Federal Republic's dealings under international law, equality is overwhelmingly affirmed.

Where I placed the asterisk (*), there is the following comment in a footnote:

Although the express wording of the Grundgesetz refers to the territory of the German Reich within the borders of 1937, according to the Two 2+4 Treaty, admission can only take place on the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Why should you, me, or anyone care?

You see, the point here is that these passages in the Grundgesetz are the expression of what jurists call ius sanguinis, which is, according to Wikipedia (the go-to definition of what is deemed acceptable and/or approved content; references omitted),

Jus sanguinis, meaning ‘right of blood’, is a principle of nationality law by which nationality is determined or acquired by the nationality of one or both parents. Children at birth may be nationals of a particular state if either or both of their parents have nationality of that state. It may also apply to national identities of ethnic, cultural, or other origins. Citizenship can also apply to children whose parents belong to a diaspora and were not themselves citizens of the state conferring citizenship. This principle contrasts with jus soli (‘right of soil’), which is solely based on the place of birth.

In short: if you were a German in 1937, your children (and their descendants) would be, too.

Problem is, of course, that there were millions of ethnic Germans (Volksdeutsche) who lived beyond the borders of Germany. They are the subject of the Basic Laws ‘status Germans’ provisions.

A related, if smaller, issue would be those who held or hold Austrian citizenship based on these considerations: for all intents and purposes, Austrians in 1938 were not considered Volksdeutsche; they were Germans.

At this point, I’ll spare us all—for the time being—the odd and tedious debates about whether or not Austrians since 1945 are Germans [they were]; since I’m Austrian, I’ll offer the short-hand note here: ‘our’ culture is German, and although there’s an entire twisted history related to post-1945 Austrian identity (which I’ll certainly skip), the entire problem is sufficiently summarised by Yad Vashem’s definition, which holds that a Volksdeutscher is:

literally meaning ‘German-folk’, used to refer to ethnic Germans living outside of Germany. Volksdeutsche did not hold German or Austrian citizenship…

(There emerged an entire cottage industry after May 1945 discussing these issues; the short version is that, yes, Austrians share responsibility for the Third Reich, but Austria was also, in the words of the 1943 Moscow Declaration, ‘the first victim of Hitlerite aggression’. Needless to say, this stance is highly contradictory and adds to the confusion about German ethnicity. It is also something that is rarely, if ever, discussed by the scholarly literature.)

Setting these notions aside, a different research file by the Bundestag’s Research Office explains the tricky aspects here—that also pertain to the SPD’s revolutionary platform:

In the legal literature, it is almost unanimously held that Germans within the meaning of the Basic Law are all German nationals as well as status Germans who are treated as such in accordance with Art. 116 para. 1 of the Basic Law, irrespective of any ethnic-cultural aspects.

In some cases, however, it is also assumed that the Basic Law nevertheless assumes a (national) ‘identity of the German people’, which is largely characterised by a common language, culture, and history of the German majority population…A constitutional principle of ‘nation-statehood’ [Nationalstaatlichkeit] understood in this way obliges the state to preserve the ‘national German identity’, but does not authorise measures that affect the (equal) status of citizens or their civic rights…discrimination against citizens with a migration background is inadmissible. However, the ‘collective identity’ of the nation can and must be preserved by controlling access to citizenship and, above all, immigration.

The document goes on to explore the many recent judicial decisions pertaining to these clauses, and they make for no fun reading—and they in many ways re-write German history in very curious ways.

Arrived at in the context of an appeals procedure against the banning of the post-NSDAP faction once known under the name of National Democratic Party of Germany, which authorities have attempted to ban for decades. Its current iteration is called ‘Die Heimat’ (The Homeland), and this kind of ‘shape-shifting’ short of an outright ban (which would be politically and legally problematic due to Germany’s Weimar history) is how the state wages a relentless war against (Neo-)National Socialist factions. The linked Wikipedia piece is actually quite helpful in terms of summarising this.

And this context brings us to the cited arguments (sic) presented by the Bundestag’s Research Office:

The Administrative Court recognised…beyond doubt that the concept of the state people [Staatsvolk] of the Federal Republic of Germany in the Basic Law is identical to the German people within the meaning of Article 116(1) of the Basic Law, according to the interpretation of the Federal Constitutional Court. Therefore, it is not constitutional for the plaintiff to base the ‘Staatsvolk’ on nationality and the ‘deutsche Volk’ on ethnicity.

This is, in my reading, prima facie evidence of circular reasoning and a thoroughly ahistorical understanding of who was commonly understood to be ‘a German’ in 1937/38.

As the savage exactions against German civilians (and soldiers) in 1944-46 across Europe made perfectly clear, Reich citizens and Volksdeutsche (‘status Germans’) alike were considered ‘fair game’ by everyone:

• Watch the BBC documentary ‘The Savage Peace’

• Read R.M. Douglass’ Orderly and Humane (Yale UP, 2012)

AT THE END of World War II, between twelve and fourteen million people, ethnic Germans, were forcibly expelled from Eastern Europe, or, if they had already fled, were prevented from going back to their homes. Many of them were simply bundled on to cattle trucks of the sort previously used to take Europe’s Jews to their fate in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and Treblinka, and sent westward to Germany without food, water, or adequate winter clothing. Others were detained in appalling conditions in concentration camps for weeks, suffering from disease, starvation, and maltreatment, before they were brutally pushed out to the west. Long lines trudged towards Germany, with the weak succumbing to hypothermia and malnutrition. Altogether probably half a million and perhaps as many as a million perished in what was the largest action of what later came to be known as “ethnic cleansing” in history.

The above is the first paragraph of Regius Professor of History Robert Evans reviewing Douglass’ book. Note that West Germany’s first Chancellor Adenauer would once note some 5-6m Germans had ‘perished’ (verdorben) during these years.

Douglass cites ‘as many as 1.5m’ dead (p. 1), and for educational purposes, I’m willing to share my PDF of Orderly of Humane with those who drop me a line or two via email.

The SPD is the Most Radically Anti-German Faction

In the aftermath of WW2, it was perfectly clear to anyone who was to blame:

‘ze Germans’, all of them, were held collectively culpable for the crimes of the Third Reich.

Across Europe east of the Rhine, these sentiments, deriving in part from military defeat and years of occupation by the Wehrmacht, but in no small part also from willing collaboration with Hitler (mainly against the threat of Soviet-style revolution).

Basically, those Communist camp-followers of the Red Army who ruled, with an iron fist and merely due to the Soviet military advance, over half of Europe after WW2 thus had two reasons to be that vindictive:

• projection of their own ideological-racist hatred onto the defeated German and perceived-as-such minorities (yes, leftists can, and have been, very racist, on which see below)

• ‘compensation’ of the various peoples then ruled by small Bolshevik revolutionaries, often against popular sentiments, to whom the above-noted projection was offered as a quick-and-easy option to affirm their loyalty to the new régimes

Thus, when the Basic Law was written in 1949, it was 112% obvious who was meant by ‘status Germans’—as these 12-14m people (via Douglass) were ethnically cleansed from their ancestral homelands.

Note that these German-speakers after WW1 also held citizenship in a variety of countries across East-Central Europe that they didn’t wish to belong to.

Basically, when the Red Army advanced, they literally had nowhere else to go but try to escape westwards towards Germany as the locals, egged on by returning Communists, had no qualms about what they would do (if you haven’t done so, watch the BBC documentary ‘The Savage Peace’).

Caught between a rock (complicity in NS Germany’s atrocities) and a hard place (the prospect of being killed), 12-14m fled westwards in a desperate attempt to stay alive.

No-one wanted to keep them, especially not the Communist-run German Democratic Republic.

In other words: when the Basic Law was promulgated, everybody knew who was a German.

It is this history that the SPD platform now proposes to erase.

And they lean on activist, anti-German judges that twist the meaning of both the law and history to facilitate—what end?

The ultimate ending of German history, warts and all.

And if you dare to object, you’re, of course, a bad, evil person.

Bonus Feature: ‘Alt-Media’ Beclowns Itself

The above must, of course, not be discussed by anyone. It’s no surprise at-all that legacy media ‘reporting™’ is abysmally bad (see, e.g., this piece by state broadcaster ZDF, which omits this topic entirely). Yet, it’s also self-styled ‘alternative’ media that similarly stays mum, and for this aspect, I offer the below-translated piece by NIUS.de.

New election programme: SPD removes father, mother and children from the family,

Via NIUS.de, 16 Dec. 2024 [source]

The party that is still chancellor is continuing to prepare for the 2025 election campaign. The SPD plans to adopt its election manifesto in the party executive on 17 December [it was adopted] and then present it to the public. The CDU/CSU is also planning to present its programme on this day. So it will be a day full of competition!

The topic of family is to be one of the Social Democrats’ election campaign focal points. In its ‘draft government programme’ (available to NIUS), the former people’s party SPD mentions the point: ‘We are fighting for a reliable everyday life for families.’ The programme list for this topic is long. For example, maternity protection, parental allowance, child benefit, housing benefit, taxation, daycare centres, schools, and education…

The SPD defines a family literally as follows [check above]

But in this definition of family: not a single word about mother, father, or children!

In plain language, this means that the Social Democrats, who have ‘social policy’ as their election campaign slogan, apparently no longer even want to specify who makes up a family…

Instead, it simply states that family is a place ‘where people meet’. At the same time, the programme contains confusing terms such as ‘family council’.—What is a family council [orig. Rat, i.e., soviet in Russian]?

In its election campaign, the SPD is therefore focusing on a series of measures to provide greater support for families—without being able to specify what a family really is.

SPD chancellor candidate Olaf Scholz himself is married to SPD politician Britta Ernst. The couple have no children.

And here you can see how shitty alt-media reporting™ is on this issue:

Without consideration of kinship/family/nation ties across the 20th century, German history becomes…well, what exactly?

Note, further, that the Federal Republic of Germany as it exists is, according to another document by the same Bundestag’s Research Office, we read the following:

The Federal Constitutional Court has consistently held that the subject of international law ‘German Reich’ has not ceased to exist and that the Federal Republic of Germany is not its legal successor, but is identical to it as a subject of international law (BVerfGE 36, p. 1, 16; cf. also BVerfGE 77, p. 137, 155). Reference is also made to the Federal Government’s answer to question 2 of the Small Enquiry by the parliamentary group Die Linke in Bundestag publication No. 16/3744, dated 6 Dec. 2006

If you wish to get further into these weeds, I refer you to, among others, these two pieces:

In Our Times: an 8/9 May Column

If at Night, of the 2+4 Treaty I think…

Why wouldn’t alt-media note these issues?

My money is on the notion that they are in on this ploy, and while I think they’re doing so out of ignorance, it doesn’t absolve them from their responsibility.

Bottom Lines

WW2 and its associated cruelties were among the great tragedies on the 20th century.

‘Germans’ were both instigators and perpetrators, as well as victims here.

It is, I’d argue, impossible to understand, let alone comprehend, Germany’s history without acknowledgement of both aspects.

The SPD is positioning itself clearly as the main spearhead of a new revolution; it’s stance is very much anti-German—and pro: well, whatever?

I suppose that the party platform of the SPD points to the eventual withering away of Germany—and, by extension—the other peoples of Europe and the consummation of European Union.

In this, by the way, the SPD is in the tradition of arch-racists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who were part and parcel of the sentiments expressed by German élites from the post-Napoleonic periods onwards; background here:

Commemorating 1848, German President Lies (by Omission), thus Reinforcing the Decadent Régime

Frederick Engels coined the phrase ‘non-historic peoples’, which mean the Slavs of Eastern Europe that Germans were destined to dominate because of their superior race and culture. For an intro, see this from a marxist website:

In 1948 the Ukrainian Marxist Rosdolsky wrote a devastating critique of the “nationality politics” of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, the paper that Marx and Engels published and used as the platform for their interventions in the uprisings and struggles that surged around the “bourgeois” revolutions of 1848. Rarely has any Marxist exposed the limitations of any of the concrete political stances taken by Marx and/or Engels with more frankness (less restraint) or more theoretical lucidity. Rosdolsky’s critique focused on the way the paper viewed the aspirations of the Czechs, Croats, Ukrainians and other East European nationalities, starting with the unrestrained racism of (especially) its Vienna correspondent. To Rosdolsky the former (the views espoused by Marx and Engels) mattered more than the latter (the outrageous Slavophobia of this or that correspondent), since it affected the way revolutionary socialists would view struggles for national emancipation.

Rosdolsky’s full treatment can be found here.

Basically, Marx and Engels were as racist as their ‘bourgeois’ peers, which is one of the notions that’s been virtually memory-holed from any kind of treatment.

I’d argue, though, that with the adoption of this platform, the SPD is harking back to the internationalist roots of Socialism, which envisions the eventual elimination of all ‘non-historic peoples’. The one addition here is that, it seems, now it’s Germany’s turn.

This isn’t saying that this is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in terms of a value-judgement; I mention this as this is what is meant by these propositions.

Scholz, although he looks and talks like a bumbling buffoon, stands in a clear line with the racist and anti-history propositions of Marx, Engels, and above all Trotsky, the arch-world revolutionary (and godfather of the US neocons).

I think that by offering this clear indication, the SPD and its leftist-revolutionary ilk is taking a clear ideological position.

The failure by legacy and alt™ media outlets to acknowledge this is stunning.

For the first time in decades, German voters are offered a true choice at the polls: vote for anyone who considers the SPD a viable political partner, and you’re contributing to the end of Germany.