Official Incitement – How Sarah B. Rogers of the U.S. State Department Casts Germany as an Extreme Enemy Image

Sarah B. Rogers holds the office of Under Secretary of the United States for Public Diplomacy at the State Department. In this role, she bears responsibility for the international communication of the American government – for strategic outreach abroad, media relations, digital public engagement, and the political conveyance of American positions to foreign societies. She oversees those programs, messages, and logics through which the United States projects its self-understanding, its values, and its political lines to the outside world. What goes out into the world through her channels is not a private opinion, but part of state communication. One could say: it is the voice of the state itself speaking here, in all its supposed authority.

Text above: **“Germany is well known to have very few Jews, but under Merkel imported barbaric rape hordes (as an American I am allowed to call them that). To this day Germany suppresses political opposition that points this out.

You will say this is due to ‘Jewish’ NGO tentacles or complain that Hitler (who destroyed his country) has been treated too harshly by history. You will say this because you are stupid scum who would rather spread conspiracy theories than assign Germans (or anyone else) responsibility for the future of their countries.”** (January 15, 2026)

Text below: “In the wake of the Cologne assaults, a German legislator faced official sanctions and was threatened with prison because he had tweeted the phrase ‘barbaric, gang-raping Muslim hordes.’ Germany then swiftly passed another ‘hate speech’ law directed at social media.” (January 15, 2026)

It is precisely there that the rupture occurs. That is where the monstrous begins. In her publications, Germany, England, and Europe repeatedly appear not as partners, but as problem cases of almost exemplary decay. One of the central posts contains the claim that Germany, under Angela Merkel, imported barbaric rape hordes and continues to suppress the political opposition that points to these conditions. This phrasing is not a later sharpening by third parties, but part of the official wording. It adopts vocabulary that has circulated for years in far-right milieus and elevates it to the rank of official government language. What once lurked at the margins now stands at the center. What was once whispered is now proclaimed.

Text above: “This may be a clumsy attempt to avoid the conditions observed in Europe and the United Kingdom, where citizens go to prison for quoting the Bible or even for silent prayer. But the problem with ‘hate speech’ laws – one of many – is that they are enforced by the very people who coddle actual violent fanatics as long as they appear subordinate.” (January 13, 2026)

Text below: “Countries have long banned and restricted visas on opaque, arbitrary ideological grounds. Lauren Southern was banned from the United Kingdom around 2018 because she mocked Allah as ‘gay’ and ‘trans.’ Media and commentators who were silent on or endorsed those decisions now accuse the Trump administration of its policies.” (January 14, 2026)

In another post, it is claimed that criticism of this portrayal is systematically suppressed in Germany, while at the same time antisemitic insinuations are employed. There is talk of alleged Jewish NGO networks that steer political decisions according to hidden interests. Such signals have been known for decades, their grammar is familiar to us from the darkest chapters of history. They do not serve analysis, but blame; not insight, but seduction. That they are disseminated precisely through the channel of an American Under Secretary marks a new level of escalation in the dissolution of diplomatic language – and perhaps also in the dissolution of what we once called civilization.

Text above: “The future of any sensible policy should allow the truth to be spoken – even in the vivid, polemical terms that politics usually brings with it – about events like Cologne and their undisputed causes. Instead, Germany has criminally sanctioned this language.” (January 15, 2026)

Text below: “Strong article that brings together several absurd examples, including – and beyond – those from my video. The architects of the EU’s and the United Kingdom’s digital laws actively tried to copy these in the United States – a grotesque betrayal of everything we stand for.” (January 8, 2026)

Article link to the January 6, 2026 article of the right-conservative Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/01/06/hate-speech-censorship-campus-european-union-britain/

Summary of the article: The author warns that state-enforced “hate speech” laws do not lead to a more peaceful society, but to intimidation, fear, and selective prosecution. In the United Kingdom, more than 12,000 people were arrested in 2023 for allegedly “grossly offensive” communication – a scale that exceeds even the worst phases of political repression in the United States. In Germany, people are criminally prosecuted, their homes searched, and devices seized because they sent insulting messages to convicted criminals or used politically pointed comparisons. Bible quotations, religious statements, or criticism of LGBT policy have also led to years-long criminal proceedings in several European countries, even after repeated acquittals. The author speaks of a system in which the process itself becomes the punishment. Particularly explosive is the fact that European censorship laws, via global platforms, could also effectively restrict American freedom of speech. His conclusion is clear: Europe is not a role model in matters of free expression, but a cautionary example.

What stands out is the selection of shared content. Again and again, individual violent crimes are highlighted, given religious or ethnic attribution, and presented as evidence of a general state failure. One post spreads the headline that it is acceptable to rape non-Muslim women – allegedly stated by a Muslim cleric. The context is missing, as it always is in such constructions. The source remains dubious, as it always remains dubious. The generalization is intentional, as it always is intentional. Germany appears in this portrayal as a country that tolerates or even enables such conditions, as a polity that has surrendered its own moral constitution – as if it were already lost, already fallen, already beyond any rescue.

Under these publications, approving comments from openly neo-Nazi circles accumulate. Statements claiming that Jews deliberately destabilized Germany remain unchallenged. They are not deleted, not contextualized, not rejected. This creates a public space in which state statements and extremist approval exist side by side, without a boundary being drawn. The line between official communication and radical ideology is no longer defended – it is blurred, softened, surrendered. One could think it never existed. One could think it was never intended to exist.

At the same time, the usual official staging runs on the same profile. Photographs of meetings with congressional committees, encounters with foreign delegations, words of thanks to partner states. The mask of normality is maintained, while something else proliferates beneath it. The aggressive language is selectively directed at Germany. Other allies are not treated this way. This is not an accidental tone, not a momentary irritation, but a deliberate focus – a decision made in full awareness of its significance.

Sarah B. Rogers holds the office of Under Secretary of the United States for Public Diplomacy at the State Department.

Remarkably, there has so far been no discernible reaction from Berlin. No public rebuttal, no diplomatic clarification, no assessment. While German authorities regularly respond to disinformation when it comes from Moscow or Beijing, this open defamation by a representative of the American government goes unanswered. The silence has its own eloquence. It creates a vacuum in which the portrayal remains uncontested and continues to spread, as if it were an acceptable reading of reality, as if it were one truth among many.

Sarah B. Rogers uses her office not to explain or to mediate, but to serve enemy images. The language is simple, aggressive, emotionally charged. It dispenses with differentiation, dispenses with responsibility, dispenses with the diplomatic restraint that once counted as the foundation of intergovernmental communication. That this occurs precisely in the realm of public diplomacy is not a contradiction, but part of a larger development whose end we cannot yet foresee. Diplomacy here is no longer understood as balance, but as an instrument of domestic political mobilization projected outward – as a continuation of the culture war by other means, as a weapon in a war that no one has declared, but that is already underway.

What becomes visible here is not a slip-up and not a communication error. It is a deliberate shift in state language, a reordering of what may be said and what may not. When terms from extreme milieus are normalized in official channels, the framework of what is sayable changes, what becomes thinkable, what may count as a legitimate position. The boundaries shift, slowly, imperceptibly, but inexorably. That Germany has so far remained publicly silent does not make this development smaller, but larger. Because state incitement unfolds its effect not only through volume, but through the absence of contradiction – through the silence of those who should speak, through the looking away of those who should look, through the resignation of those who could act.

Perhaps the silence itself is already an answer. Perhaps it says more than any statement could. Perhaps it reveals a quiet capitulation before the monstrous that has become normal.