German language would definitely be having feudal elements. For, the general history of divided and fragmented statehood points to that. The general talk of discipline can mean not real self-discipline as understood in English, but a sort of regimentation enforced by language and punishment.

Here one thing to be understood is that in feudal language set-ups, regimentation can be enforced by language only if the structure is strong, and each level of superior-junior relation is well defined, and also a level of homogeneity is there in the population. In places where the populace are from different racial, or social groups, each having its own different perception of the levels of each professional, financial, age or even social group, feudal languages, instead of lending stability, would lead the society to the absolute opposite of it. That is, it would lead to anarchy, instability, division and fragmentation.

In such social-design software programs, a social non-entity is a powerless personage. Yet, once he comes into power, and he manages to use the feudal programs in the language with profound understanding, and with clever sensibility and sensitivity, the language program can give him astonishing power over his fellow country. They would be subdued by the general attitude of servitude that would naturally build up.

Hitler’s* rise to the level of a despot could have been aided by the language. For in a situation of feudalistic language, the people can accept as leader only one who can assume a halo of superiority and un-approachability. The word ‘Fuehrer’* by which Hitler was referred to could have more implied sense than just `leader’ in the German language understanding.

In the context of Hitler, Jews also need to be discussed. They can be discussed in a separate heading later.