1. family and parenting
2. children

“Ideological repression” in the debate on asylum policies
(22th April 2015)
The immigration and asylum policy is nowadays a much discussed topic which splits
our German society into two camps. Quite unexpectedly, I have now found myself in
the line of fire because I dared to express my opinion on this matter in public.
In December 2014, an organisation wanted to hold a charity concert for asylum
seekers in my department store in Görlitz, Upper Lusatia. Several friends complained about this since some of the invitees were from countries that are officially
classified as safe. I followed their concerns and therefore made use of my rights as
proprietor and stopped the concert from taking place. Afterwards, I was asked to
explain my decision in the regional newspaper. In the interview, I wanted to express
the opinions of the silent majority on the current German asylum policies and initiate
a discussion on this matter. I did this in order to assume my social responsibility as
citizen and private person.
Unfortunately, my answers were a little short and provocative and were therefore
misunderstood. The press in Görlitz and Luebeck, rather inclined towards the
SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany) (1) twisted the statements and
turned it into a sensation. As a result, many readers were outraged about my
comments (in Luebeck, the topic is further journalistically exploited). However, many
people understood that there is a sensible and constructive idea behind every statement of this interview, and no heartless xenophobia or racism whatsoever. These
people wrote to me in serious and extensive replies to thank me for my courage,
claiming that I took the words right out of their mouths.
Of course and without any reservation I agree that Europe should temporarily
receive people who have fled from war, especially women and children, but only
as long as there is an emergency situation and they cannot be received in their
neighbouring countries. In any case, we should make sure the refugees are not exposed to any danger during their journey and become victims of reckless people
traffickers. At the same time, the world community needs to make a continued effort
to pacify the conflict regions so as not to let criminal gangs take over.
Seite 1
I spoke about the pogrom in Ruanda. Out of consideration for the pacifists of the
free world, an open war was avoided and the world silently watched several million
defenceless people being killed. It is high time that the international community stipulates binding rules on how to proceed in such cases with short-time military enforcement if necessary. This should not be undermined by the pacific “public opinion”
which is blind to the reality. The powers which will good eternally do evil.
They have also turned a blind eye on other internecine conflicts, for example in Srebrenica, where the Serbs killed 8,000 people. When Saddam Hussein was ready to
flee abroad, “pacific” German chancellor Schröder decided to opt out of the alliance,
in this case for electoral reasons, and thus encouraged this criminal to stay the
course.
The generosity towards economic refugees, including those who deliberately bring
themselves into life-threatening situations to get into Europe, is not acceptable.
They undermine our legal system which stipulates the necessity of a visa for legal
immigration. More than half of the German population sees this as an abuse of the
system and does not support it. In Germany, these proactive refugees stand rootless
and without a job, and in their home countries they leave a vacuum which leads to
further deterioration of the national economy (2). We should do everything possible to
encourage them to stay in their homelands, and, rather than spending so much money on their living and accommodation in Europe, partly in ghettos made up of housing
containers, we should help them to build up an existence in their home countries.
The Samaritans, however, should not act again as if they were colonial masters, this
model is outdated. And they should not try to transfer our conditions 1:1 to the other
countries. If, for example in agriculture, large fields are prepared, small farmers would
be deprived of their existence; if used clothes are sent for charity, this inhibits the
foundation of small textile factories. Europe should guard African costs and prevent economic refugees from boarding a boat instead of allowing them to enter
European borders against the wish of the majority of the population.
The idea of Germany opening its borders without any restrictions is rejected by many
citizens. Our government yet again wants to “do it all better”! Better for example than
the governments of the USA, Australia, Switzerland, and many further countries
which limit the influx of immigrants more effectively. Or better than former GerSeite 2
man governments. The USA built a fence between Texas and Mexico because they
could not handle millions of illegal immigrants. For one year now, the current government of Australia, which has the international reputation of being an open, tolerant, and friendly continent, has been efficiently shielding the country against economic refugees who arrive by sea without visa. In this way, nobody risks his life anymore
to get into the country. This new restrictive immigration and asylum policy is supported by the majority of the Australian population, in the same way as most German citizens agree with my proposals which head in the same direction.
The latest Christmas sermon of the German president and the New Year’s speech of
the German chancellor who is always concerned with the maximum consensus have,
in part, lead the people to demonstrate – supposedly the dumb and egoistic type of
person. In reality, however, they are normal citizens who are worried that Germany
will gamble its heritage away if the gates are opened without reservations. Everything that our ancestors gained in the past centuries seems to be jeopardised
due to foreign influences – freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right of selfdetermination, equal rights for women, suffrage, and jurisdiction that is independent
of religion. This today becomes obvious in areas of high population density, for example Berlin Neukölln (2). The newcomers bring their conflicts to us, we have seen
enough of this before.
The momentous decision on whether we really should receive millions of immigrants
at once should not be taken by the government, but by the German parliament, and
by two-thirds majority, as it is required in the case of constitutional amendments.
The matter should be considered from all angles and charity should not be seen as
the sole maxim.
Hereby, any discussion on whether the immigrants are religious and which God they
believe in is unnecessary. Nowadays, Islam belongs as little to Germany as
Christianity does. In the name of both, much injustice has been done. I think that
there is no space for any of the two in the mind of an enlightened person, but in any
case, faith is a private matter, also the belief in Easter bunny and Father Christmas.
Religion and politics are to be strictly separated.
Seite 3
If today it is dictated to the German population that they may need to receive half a
million economic refugees, many of them feel betrayed. If the refugees’ calculation is
right, two millions more will come next year, due to the same reasons as these had
who came before. If our generous Samaritans were to act consistently, we would also
need to receive these two million. But where would this lead us? If immigrants from
India and Africa succeed in improving their economic situation by settling in Germany, the Sorcerer's Apprentices of immigration will not be able to handle the influx
any more. There is a billion of people in Africa waiting to leave their countries (2)!
And what seems to be a good deed for some philanthropists is the starting point of
new animosity and injustice. The more foreigners come and settle here, the more
hostile will be the attitude of a large part of the population. This is, by the way, normal
human behaviour, and it is utopian to think it could be changed. Has the time come
for a new experiment? Communism has already failed which had its origin in
Germany! It made life miserable for several generations of people and brought death
to a hundred million. If today’s moralisers win and their welcome doctrine is implemented, our children and grandchildren will be the ones to pay for it!
There has always been moderate migration in Germany and Europe. People from
different countries have settled here and assimilated within two generations. And
many Germans have left Germany. Immigration and emigration were balanced for
a long time. At the end of the past century, however, the share of foreign citizens
in Germany has surged from one or two percent to over ten percent. If this development continues, it is to be feared that we will gamble away a heritage of more
than two thousand years within the time span of just one generation. Those with
nothing to lose will not be bothered. However, a farmer for example, who inherited a
farm and wants to pass it on to his children, will think differently. Should the “stateless
fellows” be allowed to generously give away half his property to strangers?
With such a fast and sustained integration of too many refugees and asylum
seekers, we also risk falling behind other nations in international comparison
and losing our worldwide top-ranking position in science and technology. Our life
style and standard will inevitably more and more resemble those of the migrants’
countries (3). It could be difficult to maintain the standards in the educational system,
not only in the subject “German”. Those who have always lived in Germany would
Seite 4
have to communicate in English with the new ones. But we are at home here and
want to speak German.
When the Turkish statesman Erdogan visits Germany and claims in a football stadium that the assimilation of Turkish nationals in Germany is a crime against humanity,
many Germans are alarmed. They do not want a state within a state (4), but that
the citizens of Turkish descent integrate. With respect to one of my statements in the
interview about Görlitz, however, I must correct myself since there has been a
change in the last years. My concerns of many years, that the majority will change
within a few decades due to the massive influx of Turkish nationals as it occurred in
the nineties, and that German citizens might soon be a minority in our country, are
being dispelled. The influx from Turkey has now significantly decreased. In 2013
and 2014, as many Turkish people moved back to Turkey as came to Germany. I
hope that this tendency will not reverse again.
My suggestion from the interview that Turkish nationals should voluntarily move back
to Turkey as it was successfully initiated by former German chancellor Kohl in his
time, was recently raised as well by the Danish government, as stated in the German-Turkish newspaper Deutsch-Türkische Nachrichten from 25.9. 2014. There is a
concern all over Europe about the development of parallel societies where European law does not apply, and rather than German judges implementing justice, “justices of the peace” use Islamic mediation practices. In his current book “The Other
Society”, the mayor of Neukoelln Heinz Buschkowski, describes this problem, narrating his own experiences (3).
Many of my colleagues of Turkish descent were born in Germany and are fully integrated here. We trust each other and I appreciate them a lot. I would personally regret it if they left us. However, some of their relatives do hardly speak their new
homeland’s language after ten or twenty years. I think language competence is the
key to integration. If, for example I had not been able to read the patent literature in
my mother tongue, German, I would not have achieved many of my inventions. So if
German citizens of Turkish descent speak Turkish half of the time when at home, I
think they fall behind when it comes to educational and professional qualifications.
Due to lacking language skills they perform worse in school than their German
classmates, not only in German, but also in other subjects. Then they are underestiSeite 5
mated and thus seldom encouraged to go to secondary or grammar school or to
study at university. University graduates of Turkish descent still constitute an
exception in Germany. Here, Turkish nationals rather run fruit and vegetable shops
and drive taxi, where they compete with the Kurds. They are rarely found in leading
positions. This is very different in Turkey: there, people with the same opportunities become engineers, teachers or physicians, in a similar ratio as in Germany. It will
not be in the genes as suggested by Thilo Sarrazin. Of course you will find many biographies which differ from this depiction. In our company, we want to pay more attention to specifically supporting our Turkish colleagues, for example offering
language courses or giving them more responsibility. They are our friends!
I care a lot for the tradition and promotion of the German language. It is our heritage and I do not want any ideological, ignorant, silly people to fool around with it,
providing a new word for “negro” every ten years, a word that I use without any
discriminatory ideas whatsoever. The liberal politician Happach-Kasan came to my
defence against the students from the University of Lübeck in the newspaper
Lübecker Nachrichten (25.2.2015): “Wanting to prove that someone has a certain
idealogical mindset by the usage of the word ‘negro’ is dogmatic and completely insensitive”. There was no doubt for her that Stöcker lead his company in an openminded and tolerant manner. And that is exactly what I do! Stöcker also despises the
claim to use both the female and the male form when referring to a person, resulting from a petty-minded sense of justice. And everyone uses it since nobody knows
whether this form of fanaticism is justified or not. Nevertheless, this will not help
women to get into the boards of directors of the large companies. I have a better solution to this problem which I explain further below. When the Bürgerinnen und Bürger (female and male citizens) have come to their senses, they will just forget about
this irritating ballast, and I can hardly wait!
In Europe there is an unprecedented cultural diversity, resulting from the history
and the characteristics of the single countries. We should preserve this treasure. The
French love their wine, food, fashion and romantic adventures, and their Tricolore
represents our common ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity. The English love their
fish and chips, five-o'clock tea, double deckers and cricket, and they do not succeed
in eliminating the anachronistic privileges of the kings and earls. The Russians listen
to their balalaika, eat caviar and borscht, drink liters and liters of vodka, and dismanSeite 6
tle and rebuild their matryoshka dolls. Italian sings all day long and compose the best
operas, they love mozzarella with tomatoes and basil, they eat pasta, pizza and olives, have great tailors and shoemakers, and the best ice cream. The Polish dress
elegantly, they provided the best pope of all times, as well as Chopin and Marie Curie, and Poland smoothed the way to overcome communism. The proud Spanish fight
bulls, eat tapas and supply us with Jamón Ibérico. Germans are known for being hard
workers, punctual, honest and tidy. We philosophise, write poems, and organise. We
are the country with the highest music culture, the best cars and machines. We rank
at the top of the work in technologies and EUROIMMUN has played an important part
in this.
The cultural diversity has shaped Europe over the centuries. If everything got mixed
up, the number of ways of life and traditions would be lost. If millions and millions of
people from other parts of the world came to Europe, who do not identify with the
values of their host countries, but only focusing on improving their economic status,
everything we stand for would die away and disappear. Most Europeans are against
this. Every European country should preserve its identity. This is not about discrimination or xenophobia. I also do not want the Europeans to go and take over other parts of the world as we did in colonial times.
No country should give itself up, but protect its traditions, language and songs, which
give its citizen a feeling of affiliation and security. We should not try too hard to
impress others by copying them. We do not have to curry favour with the Americans and should avoid anglicisms where German words can be used. If our children
mostly learn American repertoires in the music classes, as it is the case in some
schools in Luebeck, our own songs will fall behind. We should not sing “Happy birthday” here, but much rather “Zum Geburtstag viel Glück”. You can show that you are
cosmopolitan by other means, if you really think this is necessary. We have lovely
German folk songs which we should sing most of the time, and only occasionally the
imported ones, not the other way around.
I think Germany should not be seen as an immigration country and Europe not
as a continent for immigrations, because we are already populated densely enough,
as opposed to America at its time, of maybe today Canada or Australia, or, thousand
years ago, Poland. We do not need others’ help to finance our pensions, this is only
Seite 7
a cheap excuse. If it was necessary, we could restrict ourselves a bit more, without
any problems at all. It would be fairly embarrassing if the new residents had to be
exploited for this cause. They would be busy for decades adapting to living here anyway. We have a completely different option:
Let us develop a “welcoming culture” for our own offspring! Entrepreneurs and
politicians should help young people to harmonise job and family life! EUROIMMUN
has been a good example for many years: in our company kindergarten, more than
150 employees’ children are taken care of all day, starting from six months of age.
The school children are brought back from school by a driver and are looked after at
the after-school club, our teachers supervise them doing their homework.
Most of the children highly appreciate the time they spend with their nursery teachers
during the week and spending their free time with their parents. Fathers and mothers get back to work only a few months after the baby is born, receive the same
salary as before, and the company saves itself the effort of introducing persons to
replace the new parents. Anyone who rather wants to take care of their children full
time does obviously not have to use this service.
Even though many people might still believe it, the idea that a mother belongs into
the kitchen and has to sacrifice half a professional life to the family is outdated.
While others follow their career, she is torn out of her job, loses her own income and
falls behind. All the competence acquired with so much effort and hard work is unused and lost, she is in a bad mood, and re-entering the job many years later costs
her a huge effort, almost as much as a new training, and is often linked to demotion.
I appeal to society’s sense of reason: give mothers and fathers of all families the
chance to freely develop themselves professionally and exercise their learnt profession all their lives, instead of sending one parent into an obligatory break to take care
of the children for years! This is also how EUROIMMUN handles the scarcity of
qualified staff!
If these measures are applied more often, the boards of managers will automatically
fill up with women, and owing to their qualification, not because it is stipulated by the
state. Now we would only need to educate men to exercise their equal rights in the
household (I personally am a pioneer in this field!). These conditions can encourage
Seite 8
people to have children at a biologically reasonable age, i.e. at the start of their
professional lives or their university career, and not only when a doctor is needed
alongside the husband to become pregnant. Welcome, dear children, you are chosen to finance our pensions!
Shortly after my failed interview had been published, the president of the University of Lübeck, Prof. Hendrik Lehnert felt compelled to announce the following: “Tolerance, open-mindedness and a strong commitment with multicultural thinking and acting are inalienable values of our campus culture. We therefore clearly distance ourselves from the ideas stated by Prof. Dr. Winfried Stöcker in his interview with
Sächsische Zeitung.”
That was not fair. The president should have informed himself about the background
of that twisted interview in the first place. He knows the company EUROIMMUN in
all its facets and we had before conducted a number of scientific projects together.
He could not have possibly missed the fact that especially this company and its
managing director cannot be outdone when it comes to tolerance and openmindedness. I have always proved this. Scientists from all over the world are guests
in our company. I respect every person, no matter his origin or sex. I care for justice
and fair working conditions. Whoever visits this company which I founded and direct,
at any of our sites in the world, praises the friendly and familiar, non-discriminatory
atmosphere. We have just recently been ranked 7th of 620,463 evaluations of German companies with respect to our treatment of women (5), even though we do not
always explicitly use the female German form when we address women.
Since he is scared this university, which he recently was named president of, might
become affected, Prof. Hendrik Lehnert just dropped a renowned scientist and
international entrepreneur, who had already done so much for the University of
Lübeck like a hot potato when his university medicine was at stake and just recklessly and carelessly delivered me to the press who just seek sensations. His comments only really got the thing boiling, a much appreciated gift to the journalists in the
boring time before Christmas. Especially a university should allow a variety of ideas
and ways of thinking! And this president does not have an absolute monopoly on the
truth.
Seite 9
My Görlitz interview can also be diametrically assessed. This was proved by several
hundreds of replies which reached me afterwards. “I have read your clear and explicit
words and would like to thank your very much for this unmistakeable message. If our
regional politicians and journalists now claim you have damaged the antique Görlitz
department store, I just think this is a blunt attempt to hinder diversity of opinion, and
I more and more see us risking falling back into a state which we really wanted to
overcome with the political changes in 1990.” “Mr. Stöcker is right with his statements. He openly says what many citizens think, but keep quiet about”, “My respect,
Mr. Stöcker, you have the courage to swim against the stream!”, “After reading your
interview, I feel I must ask you to please stay as you are.”, “I completely share your
concerns about illegal immigration”, “Our thoughts exactly! We would like to sincerely
thank you for your explicit words, as well as for having the courage to speak out an
unpleasant truth”, and from my laboratories: “We stand behind you!” Also my customers seem to see me in a better light than the president of the University of
Lübeck. They have been loyal to me because they have known me for a long time
and acknowledge that I am a kind-hearted person and not guided by any perfidious
reasons.
These open minded supporters will not let any journalist or politician tell them what to
think. In a democracy, votes are counted, no matter whether they are “good or bad”,
and if the majority of the German population does not agree to an unlimited influx of
people from remote countries, politicians have to accept this. It does not suit our
society that some model democrats impose their views on people who have
different opinions, label them as morally inferior and discriminate them (6, 7).
Even two months later, Prof. Lehnert taught his students, as quoted in the newspaper
Lübecker Nachrichten from 21.2.2015, he was thankful for the situation arisen from
the Görlitz interview as “it helped them to show who we are and what we stand for,
for open-mindedness and tolerance”. Classes in Pharisaism – being bothered about
trivialites (he said “negro”!) and not wanting or not being able to see the whole context. He forgot about the Christian ideas, such as forbearance and forgiveness.
Mr. Lehnert: I have been standing for all this for ever, with all my heart and all my
deeds, and moreover for generosity, reason, vision, and, most of all, democracy and
respect for the others’ opinions, but not for smear campaigns against independent
minds.
Seite 10
On the occasion of an event at the beginning of 2015, when the legal status of the
University of Lübeck was changed to a foundation, a very clever member of the student senate affirmed: “Money can also smell”, and that possible financial help from
EUROIMMUN director Winfried Stöcker should clearly be rejected. “Nothing can excuse his racist comments in that newspaper interview”. This statement was published
in Lübecker Nachrichten. The best opportunity to show a successful entrepreneur his
limits. Also, an affront to my 2,000 hard-working and creative employees who honestly generated the provided funds (amounting to up to nearly one million Euros per
year). Nothing could be read about the president of the university objecting to such
unmannerly comments. Therefore, one must conclude that he either shares that view
or is afraid of the students. And now I would like to make one thing clear: Nostra pecunia non olet. EUROIMMUN will not voluntarily provide further financial funding for
the university as long as this president is in charge. He has succeeded with something the regional government could not achieve five years ago: that Luebeck’s
leading biotech company will now find another site for expansion and several very
successful and exemplary cooperation projects will be cancelled.
Luebeck, 21th April 2015
Winfried Stöcker
Remarks:
1.
The German print and publishing society “Deutsche Druck- und Verlagsgesellschaft mbH" (ddvg) is co-owner of the newspapers Lübecker Nachrichten,
Sächsische Zeitung and Nordbayerische Nachrichten. On its website, it
describes its task as “professional shareholding management for the proprietary, Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). The aim is to economically
manage the shares, to increase the substance, and therewith, simultaneously,
contribute financially to the work of the SPD.”
I think it is a scandal that the SPD has a share in press organs, even
alongside its newspaper “Vorwärts”, unnoticed by the public, and therefore
has the possibility of secretly influencing the public opinion. Knowing this, it
does not surprise that any statements which differ from the “class” point of
Seite 11
view, such as made in the Görlitz interview, are strongly discriminated
against that you get the impression the different-minded stands alone. Current polls, however, like the one by German radio channel Deutschlandfunk
from February 2015 show that the contrary applies!
By such a media fudge, the comrades can achieve majorities for some political views which tactically help the party and which help them to make the
CDU compliant, e.g. suffrage from 16 years of age, immigration of Turkish
nationals to Germany, retirement at the age of 63,
minimum wage, setting limits to the rental prices, language mix-up, exaggerated inclusion.
Many further daily newspapers are partly or completely owned by the SPD
(http://www.flegel-g.de/spd-verlagswesen.html). Inge Wettig-Danielmeier,
SPD general trustee, said: “From a participation of 30% on, our wishes with
respect to what has to be reported cannot be ignored”. And my assumption: every immigrant is an SPD voter!
2.
David Signer: Eine Bankrotterklärung Afrikas. “The real scandal behind the
refugee drama of Lampedusa is not Europe shielding itself, but the indifference of the African governments towards the exodus.” Neue Zürcher Zeitung,
28th February 2015.
3.
Paul Collier: Massenimmigration und Zusammenhalt. “Immigration has up to
now been a moderate gain. A further increase however should be restricted.
Too much ethnic-cultural diversity threatens social cohesion and thus the bases of prosperity.” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9th March 2015.
4.
Heinz Buschkowsky: Die andere Gesellschaft (The Other Society), 2014, Ullstein-Verlag, ISBN-10:3-550-08050-6.
5.
In a current, inter-branch data evaluation, the career platform “kununu” has
identified the TOP 10 of the companies with best treatment of women, based
on 620,463 evaluations of German employers. EUROIMMUN ranks amongst
Seite 12
them (rank 7, Vienna, press information, 3rd March 2015)!
6.
Mr. Kretzschmar writes in the Görlitz newspaper StadtBILD (independent of
ddvg) from February 2015: “Whilst media, parties and administrations publicly
demand freedom of speech and tolerance, any critiques are met with systemic,
inter-linked actions of marginalisation and intimidation, professional discrimination, withdrawal of responsibilities, and denigration. In those who demand tolerance, you rather notice a destructive intolerance. People who think differently are generally classified as mob… hate campaigns against patriots poisen
community life”.
7.
Journalist Bettina Röhl says: “The left mainstream is replacing the constitution.
Whoever expresses his opinion (on immigration and asylum policy), which
contradicts the politically correct mainstream or which does not go with it, is
not physically persecuted. However, he is automatically socially marginalised.
He is then called a ‘racist’ or ‘Nazi’. He is automatically a ‘disgrace to Germany’. Sanctions are noticeable.”
Addendum:
The chancellor of the University of Lübeck suggested that Prof. Stöcker should return
the title he was given by the university senate now that he stops the financial support
(in smelly money) for the university. He disregards that there is no such a correlation.
The title was given to me due to my performance and my scientific achievements, not
because people were expecting abundant financial funding.
I also do not ask the chancellor, neither the president to resign from their positions
due to their own blatant offence against the basic principle of democracy: in their university which is committed to pluralism, they disregard the right of every single citizen
to freely express his opinion and try to deny him this through a collective dictate.
On 22 February 2015, Lübecker Nachrichten quoted the former SPD candidate for
chancellor, Björn Engholm: “The (smelly) money from EUROIMMUN comes from the
company and not from Mr. Stöcker as an individual person”. He is totally wrong,
Seite 13
however: each and every cent of these donations had my personal approval, in the
same way as every research and development project, every building established
and step of expansion was initiated and directed by me personally. Without my initiative, this enterprise would not exist, nor would numerous ground-breaking inventions
and research results. Hundreds of ingenious minds worldwide owe me their exemplary careers, 2,000 workers their job and innumerable patients their life. Although I
made sure EUROIMMUN would nowadays be able to exist and to preserve its international leading position without my active involvement, the company name “EUROIMMUN” (which is, of course, also my invention) is as closely linked to my name as is
the name of Engholm to the “Barschel affair” and the “Schubladenaffäre” – other disreputable excrescences of our democracy.
Seite 14