"Immer mehr 'Reichsbürger'

Berlin - Die Szene der sogenannten Reichsbürger in Deutschland wächst enorm. Die Zahl stieg binnen des vergangenen Jahres um 50 Prozent an - auf 15600 in diesem Januar, wie das Magazin Focus unter Berufung auf die Verfassungsschutzämter der Länder berichtet. Anfang 2017 gingen die Sicherheitsbehörden noch von etwa 10000 Reichsbürgern aus. Das Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz wollte die Angaben am Freitag nicht bewerten und verwies auf die mit Stand Ende September veröffentlichte Zahl von 15000 Anhängern. Eine bewaffnete Gruppe innerhalb der Szene plant Focus zufolge offenbar den Aufbau einer eigenen 'Armee'. Entsprechende Bestrebungen hätten Verfassungsschutzämter in Ostdeutschland registriert.
Sicherheitskreise hätten bestätigt, dass sich Reichsbürger bei einem konspirativen Treffen mit dem Aufbau einer militärischen Organisation befasst hätten.
Reichsbürger erkennen die Bundesrepublik nicht als Staat an".
"Süddeutsche Zeitung" (SZ), January 13th/14th 2018, Page 7

"Evermore 'Reichsbürger'

Berlin - The scene of the so called Reichsbürger in Germany is growing enormously. The number rose within the last year around 50 percent - to a 15600 this january, as the magazine Focus referring to the State Offices for the Protection of the Constitution (domestic secret service, Denglisch) of the (federal, Denglisch) states is reporting. In the beginning of 2017 the security authorities sprang from a number of about 10000 Reichsbürger. The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (domestic secret service on the national level, Denglisch) did not want to evaluate the statement on friday and indicated the number of 15000 proponents published at end of september. An armed group within the scene is obviously planning - according to Focus the buildup of an own 'army'. Corresponding aspirations were registered by State Offices for the Protection of the Constitution in Eastgermany. Security sources had confirmed that Reichsbürger considered a buildup of a military organisation during a conspirative meeting.
Reichsbürger are not acknowledging the Federal Republic as a state".
(Translation bei Denglisch)


As there were "conspirative apartments" of the RAF (Rote Armee Fraktion (Red Army Fraction)) (extreme left terrorist group) and their organizations afterwards in the seventies and eighties there are now "conspirative meetings" of a group with the name "Reichsbürger". As the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" is a main stream daily newspaper in Munich, Bavaria it is of interest to note in what context the word "conspiracy" is used.

Usually - as it is noted already in one of the posts above - a conspiracy is organized clandestinely. Of course, that way nobody knows anything about a conspirative intention - except those who are consciously participating in such an intention.
Unfortunately, in this small news note of the SZ there is no information who was participating in such an alleged meeting. The reasons of noinformation are in the open: It would endanger the source(s) of information. On the other side the reader is forced by such a method of news to believe it. But why should he or she do so, if other kinds of information are called a conspiracy theory although every information ought to be investigated seperately from its origin as true or not true? Who has the oligopoly or monopoly of interpretation of an information as a "conspiracy theory"? As we all know: secret services have special rights. And we know that members of the secret services are only human. And as humans in a secret service organization they may fail as other humans outside do also. In this context the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" declares a circumstance as a conspiracy and in others not. As the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" claims to be an investigative newspaper it is difficult to understand why it is not investigating obvious proofs like this: http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm&c=24#TestResults . It is even worse. They are not just not investigating such proofs but they are actively refusing to investigate such links. In the end it declares a topic like this to a theory. And because of the refusal of perception of such a topic the conclusion can only be that it is assumed by the SZ as a nonreality. It does not exist. The consequence: these proofs must be a theory of a conspiracy as these proofs are not existing. A conspiracy because there are people who are insisting in investigating a circumstance that does not "exist". So, what are the motives of insistance by these people to investigate something which does not exist? It can only be a conspiracy which hides a deeper reason for inventing such tests. Inherent to this assumption is that a conspiracy is a secretive arrangement to reach a certain goal. Although this goal is plausible - namely to prove that there are elements in the atmosphere where they are not supposed to be - it is assumed that it has a deeper - other - meaning which is conspired about.
Secretive arrangement? Who knows about it? Nobody except to the participants of such a suspected arrangement. And they are keeping presumably their mouth shut.

Now, where is the legal proof for such an alleged conspiracy without witnesses of this guessed secretive arrangement to invent such test results? Well, it is difficult to find a legal proof in a context with a guessed secretive arrangement. But it is much simpler to deal with this matter: Why should some hundred tests be such a threat to exclude them from the public discourse? Why should it be purposeful to discredit quite a bit of people who are insisting in dealing with this matter as "strange"?

The answer is easy: It is threatening the postdemocracy.

And to make it a little bit more plausible: the impetus of the reality weakening term "conspiracy" is even more weakened by the introduction of a "theory" to the term "conspiracy".

A theory has certain qualifications to be a theory. Usually, it is an plausible imagination about how a difficult-to-understand reality might work.

But this doesn't matter in this case as "theory" ought to have only a weakening function in the context with the term "conspiracy" which is because of the alleged secretive arrangement already reality weak by itself. A theory is not yet real science as it waits for its proof by the empirical evidence. But the scientific connotation of the word "theory" is used in such a way that it misses the needed empirical evidence. It is merely a thought of how things may work. But as these tests are not percepted as empirical evidence because they did not originated from postdemocratic structures "theory" can not be proven as correct. It is not even tried to find an alternative explanation for these test results. The reality value of the term "theory" stays in the negative field and confirms even more the negative reality value of the claimed "conspiracy". They are strengthening each other in their negative reality value. Now, we have a perfect label to confirm the own view of reality and discredit another view of reality as a "conspiracy theory". Thus, the term "conspiracy theory" gets ready for the realm of phantasy and by insistance of truthfulness of such a "theory" the phantasy claim is getting even stronger and is changed into delusionality as the insistance of this kind of "phantasy" as truth must be pathological.

And in this moment we have worked out the difference between "conspiracy" and "conspiracy".
The first one is defined for public space and assumed as true. It serves the common good.
The latter one is defined for private use in a colloquial meaning and assumed as pathological. The latter one does not serve the common good.

But after all this theorizing about the linguistic usage of the term "conspiracy theory" there is a question in the open: Is it really that way?

In the originary working space and the herein implicit projection fields of a state authority into the public space there can't be delusionality. The state is supposed to be the representative of the common good. But the common good is usually defined by those in power. But as we know from the time of Hitler this is obviously wrong. Hitler was THE state authority (Führer-principle) by itself and it shows that a state authority may be delusional, too. You even may take examples for state delusionality from today: Zimbabwe on the one side and Botswana on the other side.

The same may be the case with the claim of a conspirative meeting of the Reichsbürger. Why? Well, who told the State Offices for the Protection of the Constitution that there was such a meeting? One person? Then it compares to Hitler. As this information relies only to ONE person.
Two or more persons? That was exactly the reason why the political party NPD (extreme right wing) was not abolished by the Federal Constitutional Court despite of such an application by the Federal Ministry of the Interior: The Federal Constitutional Court did not know who inside the NPD was really accountable to what NPD did politically. Too many undercover agents were working for the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution inside the NPD so that it was not clear who was the authentic voice of the NPD. The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution or the few responsible persons not working for the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. That way the application for prohibition of the NPD was delusional. Why? Because there was no REAL voice of the NPD and Federal Ministry of the Interior put an application for prohibition of its own personnel. A quite absurd situation. One may even suspect a PSYOP operation that the NPD even exists.

The latter examples - Hitler and the NPD - are showing that a state authority can be very well as delusional as small groups of people or a sole person.

How can we know that the "conspirative meeting" of the Reichsbürger was real if we don't know how many undercover agents are working inside the Reichsbürger? That way the claim of the state authority can be described as delusional and following that as a "conspiracy theory". In the case of the NPD the state authority had developed the scripts of its own conspiracy reality. This might be also the case with the Reichsbürger. We just don't know.
Strangely enough the usage of the term "conspirative meeting" in this news note of the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" it is getting even stranger that the newspaper is using the word "militärisch" as this term is reserved for legally recognized states: "A military or an armed force is a professional organization formally authorized by a sovereign state to use lethal or deadly force and weapons to support the interests of the state." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military )
A conspiracy theory? In German: " (...) Sie stehen unter einem einheitlichen Kommando, das dem Staat gegenüber für die Führung der Unterstellten verantwortlich ist, (...)" https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militär
The "Süddeutsche Zeitung" is conceding that way the Reichbürger a status of state which they don't have but claim. The "Süddeutsche Zeitung" helps the Reichbürger to be enhanced. Will there be a future war "Federal Republic of Germany" versus "Deutsches Reich"? The behavior of the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" in this news note insinuates this.

Yes, as we may guess from the kind of behavior of this secret service towards the NPD we may assume that within the Reichsbürger there are also undercover agents. But nobody is telling us how many of them this authority has inside the Reichsbürger.

Of course, that is the way secret services are working. They might be right, but they might be also wrong. We just don't know.

And now the question: Why is the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" publishing a perhaps "conspiracy theory" of the State Offices for the Protection of the Constitution and not others contents of others alleged "conspiracy theories"?

We have the answer why.