Norbert Bolz in an interview: "Talking to woke people is not just nonsense. It's dangerous."

Mr. Bolz, how angry were you when you wrote the first chapter of your new book?

Angry? No. I didn't mean to give that impression. I wrote all this from a great distance. The things I observe and analyze aren't new—they've been on my mind for years. One of the main impulses for this book was the desire to show how long what we're experiencing today has been in the making. I take your impression to heart. It shows me that I probably need to write with much more coolness and distance.

Anger isn't necessarily a negative thing. It can also show that you care about the issues you're analyzing. Let me clarify my impression based on two of your phrases: "Civil society is in a pincer grip" and "the intellectually homeless left."

These examples spring from a different temperament than you apparently perceived. The term "pincer grip" refers to the main thesis of the book—and even after careful consideration, I still consider it apt. As for "intellectual homelessness": This expression originally comes from Georg Lukács, more specifically from his "Theory of the Novel." His diagnosis of modernity is based on precisely this term.

As I said, it could be that the topics you write about are close to your heart. Then things can sometimes get more emotional.

I wouldn't even agree with you there. It's not something I care about. If that were the case, I'd have to go into politics. My interest lies in analysis—and that can be sharp, perhaps even overly sharp at times, if I get the impression that smokescreens are being thrown around to lull people into a false sense of security.

So everything is free of emotions?

What you perceive as anger stems from the fact that I consider the policies of the past decades—often referred to today as "left-green"—to be devastating. These policies are destroying our society, and not just in Germany. It's true: I don't view the world with complete neutrality. I feel that there are forces that are truly destructive—and they must be identified. I'm not driven by the hope that everything will turn out for the better.

Rather?

My motivation for writing—apart from the fact that I enjoy earning money—is the desire to gain clarity about the things that interest me. And I want to offer argumentative support to people who feel similarly to me.

In your book, you describe today's culture as the "most strenuous of all times," but at the same time speak of the beginning of an "age of common sense." What makes you believe we are entering such a phase now?

Quite simply: I assume that this woke cultural revolution has been taken to such extremes that we are now facing an implosion. For years, wokeness has been taking over from the top. It worked. The terror was effective. But now there are more and more people who are making fun of it and distancing themselves from all the rituals associated with it.

What rituals are you talking about?

One example would be gender. In the past, people clenched their fists in their pockets; today, those who continue to cling to it are laughed at. Even companies are abandoning these woke concepts. In the US, Donald Trump has put an end to the whole thing by cracking down on universities.

But this isn't something that's simply being accepted. Although Harvard University has had its funding cut, the university administration is still adhering to its existing policies and rules.

Of course. But it's not the universities themselves that are fighting back, but the so-called voodoo sciences. It's no different here. If similar measures were taken here, there would be mass demonstrations. Many make a living from activism, especially students of niche subjects. The rest can only laugh about it. The hegemony is crumbling. I'm seeing the first signs of this on public television, too.

In what way?

The attacks are rampant. Even the Tagesschau, which I valued as a flagship of modern information just a few years ago, has degenerated into a simple propaganda program – from A to Z. You can't even look at the weather forecast without it being colored red for propaganda purposes, with flames or something similar. It's getting more and more absurd.

Norbert Bolz: “Only if there is a stable foundation – a basis of normality – can we break out of this normality at certain points.” Anikka Bauer

When the new era you speak of dawns, then follows...

...the skeptical generation. These young people are experiencing the consequences of migration policy and this propaganda machine. I am convinced that we are on the cusp of change.

The Left, the Greens and probably also Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt would counter that the growing generation is not a skeptical one, but a right-wing generation – at least in view of current figures from the Federal Ministry of the Interior.

A skeptical generation, if there is one, is not one that can be defined demographically, in the sense that 80 percent of all young people are skeptical. No. Rather, this generation must dominate the key positions in our society – in politics, in the media, in academia. That used to be the case. There were personalities who shaped public discourse. And on the subject of "right-wing": Bodo Ramelow said this a year and a half ago: "We are the center of society." If the Left is the center, then the SPD is already right-wing.

The title of your book leaves no doubt – you want a return to normality. On the other hand, you write that salvation from today's culture war lies "in breaking with normality." How does that fit together?

You've raised a crucial point. My book is about, among other things, modern conservatism—and the widespread misconception that conservatives only cling to the old ways. That's a completely outdated view. I fully endorse Joseph Schumpeter's formula of "creative destruction." I also consider Arnold Gehlen's statement that innovation never comes from the family world to be very clever, sharp, and correct.

That means it's not just about clinging to the old ways or about revolutionary change—but rather a mixture of both? A return and a break?

Exactly. Only when there is a stable foundation—a basis of normality—can we break out of this normality at certain points and try something new. Hegel once said, "I need my family and I need my beer, otherwise I cannot develop new ideas." What he ultimately means by this is that only in absolute security, in civil life, do you have the strength and energy to think of new things. This applies to thinking as well as to acting. In my book, I attempted to correct this false judgment about conservatism to some extent—and to show what a modern conservatism that is interested in the new might look like. But you can't change everything at once.

Nothing other than a form of complexity reduction, as Niklas Luhmann aptly stated in the 1970s.

Absolutely. You need a loophole through which you can sight your target. You need that small, clear view. Everything else stays as it is. You just work on that one point. Step by step. I wouldn't be so optimistic if we hadn't seen it work before—in the 1950s and 1960s.

Between cultural criticism and conservatism: “There is such a thing as normality.” Anikka Bauer

Is that what you mean when you talk about normality? Something like, "Everything used to be better" or "Germany, but normal"?

Although such a statement immediately outs oneself as a hopeless reactionary, I would say: Yes – in a certain past, things were better.

When exactly?

Between the fall of the Berlin Wall and 9/11. That was a great time. A successful and happy time. And I also remember my childhood – the late 1950s and early 1960s. People were content, the economy was functioning, and there was a real willingness to work hard. In the past, people were happy if they could take a tent to the Riviera. Today, even someone on social security would refuse, saying, "That's unreasonable and primitive." I experienced that time. A great time. And in that respect, I know: There is such a thing as normality.

But doesn’t the appeal to “normality” itself threaten to become a normative instrument of power – much like the moral exaltation that you criticize in wokeness?

No, there's a crucial difference: The normal people accept the woke. But the woke won't let the normal people stay the way they are. If the woke have their way, the normal people should change their lives. This also applies to the governments of recent years and decades. Everything has been dictated—diet, consumption, lifestyle, family relationships. There's hardly an area left where people don't interfere. Privacy has been practically abolished. And that's the real problem.

In addition to this meddling, your book also laments an alarmism that has us in a "pincer grip" in all areas of life—whether it's pandemics, climate change, or social inequality. At the same time, you warn of a cultural decline. Don't you respond to alarmism with alarmism yourself?

Naming problems is always a question of vocabulary. The woke would say: The core problem is racism. The Greens would say: The core problem is the climate catastrophe. And the right-wing would say: The core problem is Islamism or mass migration.

And what do you say?

I would say: It is pointless to claim that racism does not exist. Just as it makes no sense to say that climate change does not exist. The crucial question is: How is the problem described and proven? When it comes to climate change, they say: It is ten seconds to midnight – the world is about to end. That is alarmism. On the other hand, it would be just as alarmist to claim: The Western world is already completely in the grip of Islamists. But you are of course right, it is always a question of vocabulary and articulation. Basically, all I can do is try to strike a different tone, a more analytical one, so as not to fall into this eternal one-on-the-other-other. Basically, there are only alarmists. On the right and the left. But that doesn't change the fact that I – like many other conservatives – see mass migration as a serious problem.

Do you see this as a problem, or are you afraid? Fear plays a big role in your book—but only among the woke, who are afraid of climate collapse, for example. What about the fear of migration, which certain parties also exploit?

Of course, there are. The point is: fears of migration are virtually absent from the media. Quite the opposite: Anyone who identifies Islamism as a problem is quickly labeled as right-wing extremist—as a hate monger. In this respect, fears are taken seriously in an asymmetrical way. The crucial question is: How are fears addressed and how are they exploited? Climate change, for example, is being used politically to massively interfere in people's lives. I have no doubt about that.

Norbert Bolz: "There are very educated people who are nevertheless incredibly stupid. Talking to them is not only useless, but even dangerous." Anikka Bauer

How does your claim to engage in dialogue on equal terms fit with your comparison of the woke to the Taliban or your description of politics as "the garbage dump of social systems"? Does such vocabulary help in attempts to enter into a discourse?

There's a misunderstanding here. I'm never suggesting that one should debate with the woke. That would be utter nonsense. A complete waste of time. Are you familiar with Dietrich Bonhoeffer's text "On Stupidity"? There are highly educated people who are nevertheless incredibly stupid. Talking to them is not only useless, but even dangerous. And that's exactly what we're dealing with.

Finally, let’s look back: Has your basic belief always been conservative?

Helmut Schmidt – that was the politician I could truly identify with. I thought: He should be in politics for me.

My point is: You write in your book: "A normal person knows who they are and doesn't have to search for their identity." Do you consider all people who question or change their attitudes or political stance over the course of their lives abnormal? From a certain age, you're not only responsible for your appearance, but also for your identity. I still believe that when you're young, you're left-wing. You don't take on any responsibility, you don't have a family, you don't have a job. But by the age of 40 at the latest, you should know who you are—and where you stand politically.

Norbert Bolz: Back to Normality. LangenMüller Verlag, Munich 2025. 256 pages, 24 euros