We have been living in a period of a new modernity, the age of information. The age of social media and instant communication. This is far different than periods that existed before it. Each new technological and social paradigm shift creates a new definition of modernity and an opposing group of people holding fast to the past. It sews division.
In our current socio-cultural space (and oftentimes as purely political rhetoric) comparisons are drawn to Nazi Germany. And while this oft-made comparison has merits it is a bit too simple. There have been many books and essays on how Hitler rose to power. This won’t be one of them. But what we will see is a very similar landscape in the era that preceded him. This essay focuses on the cultural revolution that occurred in the 17 years that led up to Hitler. We should realize that the Weimar Republic was a wonderful, modern, intellectual, socially progressive society. No one would have dreamed where it would have ended. It is defined by the forward march of modernism and also its resistance by those seeking to hold onto a “golden time” (that never truly existed in the first place). This essay is told not through modern voices, but from intellectuals of the period. The rhetoric has not changed much. It is eye-opening to see the same thing happen again and again, in places where it “could never happen”.
As the Spanish philosopher George Santayana famously said: “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.”
The effects of modernity in Weimar made it home to a renaissance of ideas. Many thought that this was an era of hope and positive change for Germany. This post-war era meant a chance to start over. For many, it meant breaking down old social structures. It was a chance to challenge old authorities. The world of mass consumerism came to Germany and with it a whirlwind of changes in art, home life, and industry. New technology forced Germany to develop at a faster pace than ever before. Ideas from outside of Germany were assimilated. There were many different positive views, all with the idea of building a better Germany. For many others though, the changes meant something different. It was not a positive experience. Every facet of modernity was criticized by these cultural pessimists. Modernity meant something more than new forms of art and technology. This new age challenged everything they thought to be dear. It meant challenging nationalism, and the advent of capitalism, liberalism, and rapid change. From this standpoint, the pessimists saw a society in which man’s inconsolable issues with civilization and being came to an apex. These new changes meant a loss of meaning in life; it meant a bleak future for humanity. To these intellectuals, this change was not only negative but meant complete cultural deterioration. Cultural pessimism in Weimar was primarily caused by this modernity.
What is meant by the word modernity? It is more than simply something new in the context of Weimar. It was a complete change of life. Modernity in Weimar specifically meant the change from a closed culture to a world of mass consumption. There is an increase in technological advancements happening quicker than any period before it. The department store is becoming a major part of urban life. With the department store, there is a new wave of advertising unlike any seen before. These advertisements, while meant to sell products to everyone, are for the first time fixated on the new modern woman. The young woman had never had as much freedom. She could work, vote, and partake in the newest fashions from France. Urbanization itself is taking hold, as droves of people center around the symbol of Weimar’s modernity, namely Berlin. Modernity meant all this and more.
Photography had never been more accessible, and the rapid-fire printing press is publishing copy after copy of the newest magazine. All told there were over four thousand titles, including newspapers, journals, and popular magazines. Berlin had many newspapers throughout any given day including an amazing forty-five morning newspapers[1]. Truly there was something for everyone to read at the breakfast table.
The photomontage created a new form of propaganda as well as a new type of art. Photography had never before been so accessible, becoming a major part of arts and people’s everyday lives. Some argued that photography was more real than painting. Painting evolved as well along with people’s freedom of expression. This period gave way to artists such as George Grosz and the development of new objectivity. In this art, the artist attempted to show a picture of super-reality, in which the image represented what was supposed to be more real than real life.
While the still image developed, so too did the moving image. The cinema gained massive popularity in Weimar. German filmmakers challenged the limits of what could be done. These filmmakers created a long list of movies that are considered to be great within cinema history. These are films such as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Metropolis, M, and The Blue Angel[2]. Each one of these films brought a new level of up-close realism and intimacy with the characters that could not possibly be achieved through the theatre.
This was no threat to the theatre though as talented playwrights such as Bertolt Brecht continued to be the voice of the times through their use of the stage[3]. Brecht’s development of epic theatre took the Weimar stage to new heights. The stage remained another place where freedom of expression was taken to the extremes as the plays became bigger and included many elaborate, musical, and in many cases, nude productions.
The radio began broadcasting to a large audience throughout the country. People could hear music, speeches, operas, plays, and a plethora of events that until this point were inaccessible to them. With this massive audience, the spread of Jazz came to Weimar from America with its new vibrant feel. In Weimar, Americanization was synonymous with modernization[4].
Industrialization increased at a rapid pace during this time due to the advent of Fordism. Through Fordism, the assembly line is brought to industry and every worker is responsible for only one part[5]. In order to have mass consumption one needs mass production and Weimar did. All of the products that were purchased so rapidly and widely were now being brought into existence just as quickly and efficiently.
Modernity consisted of all of these things and many more. The idea of modernity stretches across a large spectrum in Weimar from art, industry, and everything in between. These things, while different, all shared commonalities with Weimar. Each thing that contributed to modernity also contributed to the rise of the individual. Weimar represented a break from the old monarchy. It was a movement towards individual freedoms, which were inconceivable to many before the Great War began. For many, this new liberalism meant redefining their idea of responsibility to their country and how they viewed Germany in general. Many considered themselves to be part of a larger community now and no longer viewed their country as the priority.
This new society of mass consumerism also meant the rise of capitalism and liberalism as a result. This new fast-paced and materialistic era of production and consumption meant that there was more money to be made than ever before. The moguls of industry during this time laid down the business foundations that are still seen today.
So many in Weimar saw modernity as good. They thought that the change was needed in order to recover and grow after the long and detrimental period of the Great War. All of these new changes were considered the gifts of modernization. There was another side to this though. Just as there was a large show of positive thinking caused by this modernity, there was also a large show of negative. This cultural pessimism was caused by all of these things that by so many were deemed as positive.
“Conservatives saw their beliefs and privileges challenged, Christians saw their faith attacked, and a new class, the urban proletariat, attacked the exploitive and inegalitarian character of modern industrial society”[6]. For these reasons and many more, intellectuals across the spectrum of political thought voiced their opinions about the degradation of society shown through this modernity.
The same Berlin which was seen as the center of development and the symbol of the promise of Weimar was seen as a center of moral degradation by others. It was a center for culture yes, but to many, they saw a center for drug use and financing sexuality. To them, it was a place for unsavory and unsophisticated people to meet and indulge in the vulgar. One man, Thomas Wehrling voiced these opinions in an editorial entitled Berlin is Becoming a Whore[7]. Many of these pessimists thought that true culture remained out in the countryside. Berlin was nothing but “a loveless metropolis of left-wing intellectuals, pornography, and mass consumption”[8]. They thought that living in the city detracted from the meaning of life and that something is lost when living in that fast-paced urban environment[9].
The very same printing press that brought so many magazines and newspapers to the masses became the enemy of many Weimar intellectuals. To many, this sort of fast food press represented a decline in intellectual capacity. Thousands of illustrated magazines were being fed to the public in which there were fewer words than pictures. Edelf Köppen saw the magazine as a negative thing representative of the culture in which people were “informed about everything but know nothing thoroughly”[10].
The rise of New Objectivity was abhorred by many intellectuals as well. The paintings of George Grosz were seen as an insult. In his paintings, figures of authority were shown in an unflattering fashion. Military figures, leaders of government, and members of the bourgeoisie were shown in a light that had not previously been permitted. These paintings showed corruption, ugliness, and evil within the figures that just prior to the war were considered the heart of German nationalism and still were to many. Allowing these paintings to be shown spread dissension and was a slap in the face to German nationalists, striking an unforgivable chord.
The new technological gains saw a place for much criticism as well. The radio and cinema were both seen as passive entertainment in which the mind does not have to participate. The radio was seen as a cheap substitute to the theatre or opera, and to some the new Jazz music was seen as a back step from the great classical composers of previous centuries[11]. It was seen as the mechanization of the world, and therefore the monotonization[12]. Indeed these things were indicative of a general idea that genuine education was dying. The culture was literally seen to be “liquidating intellectuality”[13]. These technological gains were seen as negatively affecting the minds of the masses.
This technology taking over the entertainment and industry of Germany was seen as taking over all the traditional handicrafts of the people[14]. No longer was any thought needed to make the same products. Instead, all that was required now was the mere push of a button or the same twist of a bolt over and over again on an assembly line. Ernst Jünger commented on the irony of the fact that machines were invented for every non-dangerous pursuit, yet these machines resulted in more deaths than man’s dangerous pursuits[15].
The individuals who made these criticisms came from a long-standing belief in higher education. Many thought that the best way to develop was through self-cultivation; where one immersed themselves in the classics and philosophy. This tradition was known as Bildung[16].
To them the prospect of losing sight of their once high standards was scary. It meant the downfall of high society and all that truly had meaning in humanity. They sought a return to what they thought was a higher set of ideals. It was a romantic idea where one both read and lived the ideas of Voltaire[17]. These individuals followed “Schiller’s celebrated call for Gedankenfreiheit-freedom of thought”. In this line of thinking, freedom of thought and the development of the mind were absolutely necessary. Social and political rights on the other hand were seen as desirable but necessary only to a small degree. This was needed to, just as in Bildung, bring oneself to a higher state of being[18].
To the pessimists, this society of mass consumerism meant the loss of individuality despite the increase in liberalism. Intellectuals sought to warn the public about the dangers evident in society. In this society, one must protect themselves from the masses. With this message came the idea that there is a difference between individualism and egoism[19]. Egoism was the product of this liberalism and materialism, whereas individualism is indicative of something more within oneself. Truly this problem was without a simple solution. It was a deep-seated spiritual issue amongst many of these thinkers. Intellectuals sought productive collectivism rather than the mass living which was happening in Weimar[20]. Karl Jaspers wrote, “The basic problem of our time is whether an independent being in his self comprehended destiny is still possible”[21]. In this lies the deep question of whether a man could still come to his full potential given the challenges facing him in this new mechanized mass society.
In this fast-paced society, the masses spent very little time looking to the past. Society was fixated on change and progress. This in itself was troubling to many of these intellectuals, especially from the right, who prided so greatly in the history of Germany. These nationalists found great meaning in simply being German and to them it was impossible to truly move forward without looking to the past. They believed that change was something that should happen from within rather than a series of ideas brought in from the outside. This sort of slow change was the best sort of change. It meant that the change was sure to have meaning.
All of the intellectuals criticized the Weimar government in one facet or another. In fewer than fifteen years of Weimar, there were seventeen governments. In this new society, all were participating but “Politics were a game where all must participate but only politicians could win”[22]. From the perspective of the right, there was a wave of anger at the loss of nationalism. They sought to bring back nationalism while still looking forward. They sought to answer two questions, “What to do with our masses. . . and how to save them from the machine”[23]. Whereas leftists thought that the changes must come swiftly from the masses, these right intellectuals believed that their change must be slow and must come from above rather than below[24].
To those on the left, the class division was the issue. Seeking equality for the masses in the dawn of mass consumerism was difficult. This mass consumerism made capitalism a main staple of society. Capitalism was the enemy to both sides of the political spectrum. It was the enemy of the left due to the conflict with a communist philosophy. It was the enemy of the right because it was the cause of liberalism in which people sought personal gain with little regard to the state.
It seems that every new change brought on by modernity created some kind of discontent amongst the intellectuals. Cultural pessimism, while a critique of society and its trends was much more complex than simply complaining about one of society’s facets like the cinema or New Objectivity. While complaining about the passivity of entertainment concerning the downfall of education is said quite plainly, it was brought on by real fear and deep-seated discontent. There was a deeper problem with what modernity meant to the pessimists. It was the feeling that modernity was leading to a lack of meaning in life. Modernity was in fact forcing mankind into a position of angst.
To explain this it must be said that Weimar was seen by many as civilization. Civilization in the context that Oswald Spengler described. In this view, civilization is seen as negative. Civilization is seen in Spengler’s view as the inevitable conclusion of culture. Spengler uses the example of Greece versus Rome as culture and civilization respectively. Greece being the cultivated advanced people on their way to the inevitable degradation of Roman imperialism and vulgarity seen as civilization[25]. Spengler explains that this is a cyclic rotation of civilizations. Under these same conditions, the nationalists saw the former Germany as culture and Weimar as civilization. True Kultur was achieved in the more sophisticated and meaning-filled way of the past and vulgar Weimar could not compare.
How then does civilization equate to the ending of meaning in life? People generally seek to be happy and to remain so[26]. Under this assumption civilization formed. Sigmund Freud discusses in depth the process by which civilization must have developed in Civilization and its Discontents. This process lays down civilization’s constraints that are inconsolable with human nature. At some point, the primitive man discovered that it was more beneficial for everyone if they worked together[27]. Individuals working for their own pleasure with no regard for others only end up hurting the rest of the group. The power of the majority over the power of the individual represents the decisive step of civilization[28]. In this, there is the claim to security for all individuals, the first form of justice. Freud claims that justice is “assurance that a law once made will not be broken in favor of an individual” which leaves “no one at the mercy of brute force” [29].
Man is a creature that desires freedom though. So much struggle throughout history has centered on this idea that Freud clearly states. He points out that mankind struggles to find a balance between the happiness of the individual and the claims of the group. This is one of the inconsolable problems as man’s desire for total freedom is a source of hostility towards civilization.
What then holds civilization together? If the hostility is there, then why is it society does not break into chaos as men attempt to have total freedom? Freud explains that love is a major factor in this. In an attempt to secure that which man loves most, he allows for the security of civilization even though civilization will inhibit his ability to love. Love acts as a kind of glue for civilization even though it is another inconsolable factor.
According to Freud, a person comes to love his own family, those who are like him (his friends), those who represent his ideal, and the families of his friends[30]. In this love, he holds to the constraints of civilization so that all that he loves might remain more secure. “Civilization is in the service of Eros, combining families, races, peoples, and nations”[31].
In this context, we see civilization as the cause of discontent since it inhibits man’s natural desires, as civilization is built on the renunciation of instinct[32]. These are inconsolable issues as there is nothing that can eliminate civilization. Man, generally speaking, loves too much and therefore needs the security of civilization in order to continue. Many intellectuals saw Weimar as that negative Spenglerian culture at the apex of civilization. Thus at this point, man’s natural desires would be restricted at the maximum thus causing discontent.
It is not simple enough to say that these intellectuals were displeased with civilization due to its restrictions on instinct. This is only one part of a complex problem. Many people of Weimar loved their country. Many cultural pessimists had a deep love for Germany. In nationalism, the ideal is a love of one’s country, and those nationalists band together to seek to secure each other and that country. In effect, one way to partially overcome Freud’s inconsolable factors is for one to love the civilization in which one lives. Another way to attempt to overcome this freedom factor is to gain more freedoms. Personal freedoms gained are seen as freedoms from civilization. The ruling part of any given civilization would be considered the government. In Weimar, the political shift towards capitalism and liberalism, which are many times synonymous, is the equivalent of attempting to gain the freedom that civilization restricts. Many in the masses sought to gain this freedom after the end of the Great War which is what resulted in the Weimar Republic and the onset of modernity.
The problem with this amongst the pessimists was that it is not true freedom. Liberalism to these intellectuals was the attempt to gain freedom from civilization; to move away from the political. This act is considered fruitless as the only thing it does is result in meaninglessness. To explain this process it must be understood that the term political is to be taken as it was meant by Carl Schmitt.
Schmitt explains that while being defined, the political is always lumped in with other categories such as economics and law. While these categories do end up mixing and can become political, they are not at the base of what the political is. Another misconception is the idea that the state and politics are one and the same though the state also influences the political[33]. He states that one can only have the definition of the political by breaking down terms into the categories which make up the term. The examples he uses to explain how he intends to define the political are as follows: Morality breaks down into good and evil, aesthetics breaks down into beautiful and ugly, economics breaks down into profitable and unprofitable. Using this logic he explains that politics breaks down into friend and enemy[34].
Schmitt explains what makes the enemy, the enemy. His explanation is that the enemy is an “adversary that intends to negate his opponent’s way of life and therefore must be repulsed or fought in order to preserve one’s own form of existence”[35]. All purely political concepts, therefore, have a polemical meaning and determine who is to be negated. Throughout history, nations have classically grouped themselves into friend and enemy categories based upon these conditions.
Under these pretenses, we can say that civilization as a whole would be considered the adversary as it is attempting to negate man’s freedom. With this understanding, it would be easy to see why liberalism would seem so attractive. It replaces the political constraints of civilization with the guise of freedom. Schmitt explains that this endeavor is foolhardy as liberalism merely replaces one controlling entity with another.
How does this happen? Schmitt explained that liberalism transforms the enemy into another category altogether. For example, he says that liberalism, in intellect and economics, transforms the enemy into a debating adversary and competitor, respectively[36]. In a totally liberal world, Schmitt says that this would take place on a large scale and that everything would be depoliticized and therefore demilitarized. The reason for this is that the sacrifice of life would be unacceptable to liberals[37] given liberalism’s basis in the rights of the individual. Weimar intellectuals saw this in people’s treatment of the state. They believed that people no longer saw Germany as a place worth fighting for.
In the attempt to gain individual freedom through liberalism, private property would be the center of the globe. The state would turn into a society based built atop the two spheres of economics and ethics[38]. Schmitt argues that politics would be eliminated yet at the same time goes on to describe economics as the new ruler of society. He states that the political entity is the equivalent of the decisive entity in a state[39]. The political cannot be eliminated[40].
The Weimar intellectuals saw this liberalism stemming from modernity as people’s individual freedoms grew with the rise in consumerism and therefore capitalism. They saw the population replace the old Germany in these intellectual’s hearts with individual wants. The intellectuals recognized that the people were attempting to gain more freedoms yet merely substituting one system for another. True freedom was not gained. In effect, the only thing that happened was a replacement of the controlling entity which gave no meaning to the individual despite the guise of individual freedom.
This lack of meaning for the pessimists came in many cases from the fact that their nation, as they knew and loved it, was what was replaced. When people no longer had any meaning “morals decay and private life is ruled by wildly intensified selfishness and an increased fear of death”[41]. Ernst Jünger believed that that danger was needed in order to “draw a man to a higher-order”[42]. Part of Bildung for Jünger would have been participation in war. He considered that peace, order and the lack of war as described by Schmitt’s liberal world equated to a lack of meaning. For many pessimists, the only way to fight this new problem was to lash out at the manifestations of modernity. The theater was no longer the theater but rather “the child of a liberal epoch”[43].
It must be said that cultural pessimism did not start in Weimar. Many spoke of cultural despair in Germany before Weimar. There were previous generations of pessimism from those like Paul Lagarde and Julius Langbehn. In Weimar though, fueled by modernity these pessimists saw the conditions of civilization they feared most come to fruition.
The intellectuals, while attacking the many manifestations of modernity were really attacking the problem of meaningless existence. Many of them were locked in restless questioning of meaning in life. Martin Heidegger attempted to address many questions about inconsolable problems in humanity, or angst. This angst was the very thing that fueled cultural pessimism. Many attempted to find this meaning in the past that they believed was being lost in Weimar; “Searchers for meaningful life in a meaningless society turn to history”[44]. It must be understood that these inconsolable factors did exist before Weimar. During this time the intellectuals would say that meaning was gained through their nation. Weimar represented a turning point where to the pessimists, people began living for themselves rather than for their country and thus had no true purpose. It meant a decline in all parts of culture due to problems that have no real solutions. In Weimar, to the cultural pessimists, modernity meant meaninglessness.
In summary, Weimar with its many achievements and changes was seen as positive by many. With the advances in technology, new forms of art, and ideas freely flowing from the outside world Weimar saw much creativity and freedom which for many bred hope. The things that resulted from this flow of ideas and fast change were the result of modernity. What modernity really meant was entering the world of mass consumerism. It meant entering the world of capitalism and a shift towards liberalism for the masses the likes of which Germany had never experienced before.
To the cultural pessimists, who saw the Germany they knew to crumble before their eyes, modernity had devastating effects. The proud military that they once placed all hopes for Germany’s greatness on was defeated. This new era seeing rapid change and a push away from nationalism was considered terrible. For every new change brought on by modernity, there was an intellectual critique explaining the negative consequences on society as a result. Cinema, radio, and an innumerable number of publications loved by many were seen as signs of decline. The freedoms now allowed saw the old elites and respected members of society looked down upon by the masses. This sort of action was unallowable before Weimar and now the pessimists looked on as those whom they prided were defiled by art. While it is easy to see why they might critique the cinema or New Objectivity, it is more difficult to understand why these individual things meant complete cultural decline.
The shift towards liberalism was seen as people’s attempt to free themselves from civilization. This civilization was seen to have failed so many in the past and for these people, the entrance to the mass consumerist world based on personal desires was a negation of the political: the political as represented by the nation. It was a negation of the nation in an attempt to overcome the inconsolable issue of man’s freedom being restricted by civilization. The pessimists believed that true freedom of the mind is all that is needed, however, they saw a society that was caught up in the desire for social and political freedoms. They also loved their nation, a twofold act which on one hand also combats Freud’s inconsolable issues as civilization itself becomes protected by the love of the nationalist and on the other hand provides meaning in life.
The problem with this shift to liberalism to the pessimists was not the desire for freedom but the fact that true freedom was not achieved. Liberalism simply replaced one controlling entity with another. People had personal freedoms yes, but were now only fixated on their personal gain, and what once gave meaning to them was now replaced by empty consumerism. In an attempt to gain individual rights, individuality was ironically sacrificed for the ability to be one of the free masses. Whereas the unresolvable problems of meaning had always existed, the conditions which modernity brought forth, resulted in a feeling of meaninglessness for the pessimists. The culture in which they found themselves represented the degradation of the soul.
There had been pessimism in previous generations but in Weimar the conditions of civilization which the pessimists of previous generations feared came to actualization. These conditions were the conditions of modernity. In Weimar, cultural pessimism was caused by modernity.
Bibliography
Freud, Sigmund and James Strachey. Civilization and Its Discontents. New York: Norton, 1989.
Gay, Peter. Weimar Culture. New York: W.W. Norton, 2001.
Herf, Jeffrey. Reactionary Modernism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Kaes, Anton et.al. The Weimar Republic Sourcebook. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.
Schmitt, Carl et.al. The Concept of the Political. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.
Stern, Fritz. The Politics of Cultural Despair: a Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology. Berkeley : University of California Press, 1961.
Weitz, Eric. Weimar Germany. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009.
Footnotes:
[1]Kaes, Anton et.al. The Weimar Republic Sourcebook. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. pp 641.
[2]Weitz, Weimar Germany: Promise and Tragedy. pp 228.
[3]Friedrich Wolf, (The Stage and Life), as cited in Kaes, Anton et.al. The Weimar Republic Sourcebook. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. pp 542.
[4]Weitz, Weimar Germany: Promise and Tragedy. pp 50.
[5]Freidrich Von Gottl-Ottllienfeld, (Fordism), as cited in Kaes. pp 402.
[6]Stern, Fritz. The Politics of Cultural Despair: a Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology. Berkeley : University of California Press, 1961. pp 267.
[7]Thomas Wehrling (Berlin is Becoming a Whore), as cited in Kaes. pp 721.
[8]Herf, Jeffrey. Reactionary Modernism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. pp 35.
[9]Martin Heidegger (Creative Landscape: Why Do We Stay in the Provinces?), as cited in Kaes. pp 721.
[10]Elelf Köppen (The Magazine as a Sign of the Times), as cited in Kaes. pp 644-45
[11]Alice Gerstel (Jazz Band), as cited in Kaes. pp 554.
[12]Stefan Zweig (The Monotonization of the World), as cited in Kaes. pp 397-398.
[13]Count Hermann Keyserling (The Culture of Making it Easy for Oneself), as cited in Kaes. pp 360.
[14]Johannes Molzahn (Stop Reading! Look!), as cited in Kaes. pp 248.
[15]Ernst Jünger (On Danger), as cited in Kaes. pp 369
[16]Weitz, Weimar Germany: Promise and Tragedy. Pp 255.
[17]Ludwig Baur (The Middle Ages), as cited in Kaes. pp 384.
[18]Gay, Peter. Weimar Culture. New York: W.W. Norton, 2001. pp 72.
[19]Alfred Döblin (May the Individual Not Be Stunted By the Masses), as cited in Kaes. pp 386.
[20]Rudolf Arnheim (The end of the Private Sphere), as cited in Kaes. pp 614.
[21]Karl Jaspers (The Spiritual Situation of the Age), as cited in Kaes. pp 375.
[22]Gay, Peter. Weimar Culture. pp 75.
[23] Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, Das Dritte Reich, as cited in Stern, pp 220.
[24]Arthur Moeller van den Bruck. Das Dritte Reich, as cited in Kaes, pp 332.
[25]Oswald Spengler. The Decline of the West, as cited in Kaes, pp 358.
[26]Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and its Discontents. Trans. James Strachey. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1961. pp 25.
[27]Freud. Civilization and its Discontents. pp 53.
[28]Freud. Civilization and its Discontents. pp 49.
[29]Freud. Civilization and its Discontents. pp 50.
[30]Freud. Civilization and its Discontents. pp 66.
[31]Freud. Civilization and its Discontents. pp 81.
[32]Freud. Civilization and its Discontents. pp 52.
[33]Schmitt. The Concept of the Political. Trans. George Schwab. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2007. pp 22.
[34]Schmitt. The Concept of the Political. pp 26.
[35]Schmitt. The Concept of the Political. pp 27.
[36]Schmitt. The Concept of the Political. pp 28.
[37]Schmitt. The Concept of the Political. pp 71.
[38]Schmitt. The Concept of the Political. pp 72.
[39]Schmitt. The Concept of the Political. pp 41.
[40]Schmitt. The Concept of the Political. pp 78.
[41]Hermann Hesse (The Longing of Our Time for a Worldview), as cited in Kaes. pp 366.
[42]Ernst Jünger (On Danger), as cited in Kaes. pp 369.
[43]Arnolt Bronnen (German Nationalism, German Theater), as cited in Kaes. pp 345.
[44]Gay, Peter. Weimar Culture. pp 86.