home   english   sitemap   galerie   artclub   orient online   jukebox   litbox   termine   shop   my journalism   essays   all statements   register
May / June 2002
HITLER / JESUS (22.06.02)
BOB DYLAN (22.06.02)
TERROR ACT (18.06.02)
LOVE (18.06.02)
GERMANS / JEWS (14.06.02)
AL-QAIDA (11.06.02)
STUDENTS (11.06.02)
SPIDERMAN (09.06.02)
Essay: Present and Past (07.06.02)
TAGESTHEMEN (06.06.02)
FRIEDMAN (06.06.02)
MÖLLEMANN (4) (06.06.02)
Essay: Right-wing Populism (01.06.02)
Essay: Muslim Superstition (31.05.02)
Essay: Political Superstition (30.05.02)
DEMOCRACY ! (28.05.02)
GYSI (27.05.02)
RALPH SIEGEL (27.05.2002)
ATTAC (3) (27.05.2002)
MÖLLEMANN (3) (27.05.2002)
MÖLLEMANN (2) (25.05.2002)
THE NEW TIME (22.05.2002)
POP AND COMMERCE (11.05.2002)


Two major dangers seem to dwell in the non-digestion of World War II in my opinion: the danger of repetition and continuity on the one hand, and the danger of destructive nihilism on the other. Both seem connected to each other, as I see it.

Stimulation for this statement is the article "The Agitators behind the Young Skins" from yesterday's edition of the Swiss newspaper "Blick" which I received in exchange with the friends from the "Aktion Kinder des Holocaust" (
The whole article is here) I agree that it is very important to note that extreme right-wing leader persons exist and to explain what they are doing. In the article at hand, seven such revisionists are called by name. They are ideologists, who, for example, deny the existance of the Holocaust and the gas chambers. This by right is a criminal offence in this country, and here I can also see a justified content of the "special relation" between Germans and Jews. It is a special right insofar as the denial of e.g. the genozide of the Armenians a hundred years ago e.g. in Turkey is not rendered as a criminal offence, or the denial of anything else, actually. Also prohibited by right are natinal socialist symbols, and they fall in the same category: we don't want the nazis anymore, and we don't want that their deeds may be denied. Thus it is right to turn against such people, who publically talk in a racist way, who are talking against Jews in front of neo-nazis, or who are celebrating September 11 as a victory. People like those who are presented in the article and who spread revisionist writings.

This side of the coin is what I would like to call the "we don't want" side. The crucial part of my criticizm of society is asking about the other side: so what do you want? How do you imagine a good social system to be? It is not the one we have, otherwise people would not be so frustrated and we would not have this "reform jam". As long as there is only the "we don't want" side, the counter-world is lacking, the counter-argument. Most of the people might agree on the "we don't want", yet the revisionists do not lose their importance by that, they are not contradicted, they are only out-voted and marginalized. The problem remains. The danger of the negative remains as long as it is not clear what the positive is. Relative values also means that the bad never is really bad and so it doesn't cease to exist. If our philosophy is restricted to the search of the danger of repetition and continuity, then there cannot be such counter-worlds, and we cannot step out of the second world war. This is what I call destructive nihilism. The danger of nihilism is relevant, whenever the "we don't want" side has no complement, no "we want" side. The artcile at hand offers some examples that can illustrate this phenomenon:

"We need people who risk things. People to whom the people and the homeland are more important than the own well-being in case of emergency " is the quote of one of the revisionists. If this sentence is used to justify racism, then it is dangerous, because it initially is against other people. Yet the same quote can refer to something good, just consider that it matches Gandhis life and it does even match Elvis's life. In my philosophy it also matches Bernhard Nolz, a teacher from the city of Siegen, who had lost his job after September 11 because of pacifist utterances, and who saw the responsibility to bring the idea of peace closer to the young people. All those for me are people who stand on the "we want" side and who are co-shaven off, if the meaning of that quote is refused as a whole. In refusing the whole you may achieve that revisionist associations are not activated, but the counter-world is co-suppressed.

Here is a second quote: "He ties youths to himself with simple words and philosophies like in a sect and declares them to be something better. This makes him so dangerous", so it reads in the analysis of the "Aktion Kinder des Holocaust" in the article, talking about another revisionist. Here Hitler is suppressed and Jesus is co-suppressed. The danger, the fear is more important than happiness and wish. For of course it is dangerous, when a racist or a militarist ties youths to himself and tells them that they are e.g. better than some non-Aryans or non-Germans or whoever. The exaggeration lies in the devaluation of "simple words" and "simple philosophies", because Jesus also shared them. And Jesus also told people that they are something better, but not better than the others, better than what they were thinking of themselves. He told them that they don't have to live in guilt. Jesus, according to the Bible, also sacrificed himself for the others so that the people and the homeland were more important to him than his own well-being. "Like in a sect", it reads in the evaluation, and the concept "sect" is full of projections, similar to the concept "populism". It is suggestive and not fit to be an argument. "Bondage" would be an argument. "Suborning of criminal actions" is an argument. "Sect" is none. The early Christians were a sect in the original sense of "small, segregated religious community". The second meaning which often is used as a battle concept: "philosophically or politically one-sided groups" (Duden) already needs an interpretation, for what is one-sided? Is Jesus's love one-sided?

We must again deal with the question: what makes the revisionists so dangerous? For this question is being answered too vaguely. As someone who himself uses simple words and has a simple philosophy (Love & Peace) and who also wants to bring people together I refuse to be able to be mixed up with revisionists and to get co-suppressed in the broadly strewing opposition against revisionism. I also refuse that most of my role-models are under the same suspicion. In all fairness and urgency I thus ask the friends of the "Aktion Kinder des Holocausts" for a - best public - comment to this outspokenly relevant issue. (22.06.02) (German version)

23.06.02: There was a short private answer saying it is a misunderstanding. Well, hmm.


It had always been important to Bob Dylan to not fulfill the expectations which people had of him. This is widely known and even belongs to the things which make him something special for many people: yeah, Bob did this or that, because he just didn't want to comply with the expectations. That's cool. - Yet in the end, two persons came out of this: one Bob Dylan, who wrote "Abandoned Love" and "The Times They are a-Changin'" - from deep in his heart -, and one who is grumpy and rather nihilist and does not fulfill the expectations. A man who does not say anything definitive, who does not want to be a role-model, and who is floating far above everything, anyway.

Last year, Bob on the album "Love and Theft" again sang things in which he is stepping out of the song, as if he were one person: "If you got something to say speak now or hold your peace". He also sang: "Why don't you break my heart one more time, just for good luck". He sang that of course you can repeat the past (rock'n'roll), and that he knew a place where there's still something going on. All this is in the song "Summer Days". I wrote 100 songs myself and I know that Bob here sings about his own true wishes and issues. Only that nothing happened. Don't think that Bob would fulfill any expectations, and be they his own ones.

But this is only a song, tolerant readers might object here, and yes, this is exactly what I am talking about. A strong song behind which stands a shaky personality, is like the intense kiss of a eunoch or a strong government declaration behind which there stands a shaky government: the word is losing its meaning and authority, because it is not reconfirmed by action. A reproach that is not valid for John Lennon. Keep in mind that Dylan is by many people seen as a great influence on the own life and that he is admired, like from Foreign Minister Fischer and the whole 68-generation. But also younger people refer to him as the ultimate rock'n'roller.

Dylan also influenced me a good deal, because he is an ingenious pioneer who wrote phantastic songs. Only that he helped to work for an expectation in the audience that says that songs are illusions without political consequences, beautiful words and rhythms, with which you can escape reality for a couple of minutes, but which are not able to produce a reality. Bob Dylan is setting a bad example for other songwriters and for the audience. By his inaccessability he himself made the gap between pop artist and audience much too big, and he also is to blame that songs and songwriters are not taken seriously anymore, because they lack coherence. (22.06.02)
(German version)


The latest severe terror act in Jerusalem was a terrible deed. I cannot condemn assaults on military targets, because it is war, but against civilian and not involved people, this is horrible. And then children... HAMAS is completely mad and guilty. It is not legitimated to speak for the Palestinians. The answer will be the one of a legitimate Israel. Will it act like the terrorists, or will it act differently? (18.06.02)
(German version)


The analysis of the German press in the year 2002 is rewarding, because it shows what it actually means to still live in World War II. (1939-45). The Germans know that there was something they did wrong, but they don't know exactly what it was. So the values of then are simply turned upside down: yesterday the Jews were persecuted, today they are pampered: "There must not be any frivolous behavior towards the emotions of the Jews" (CDU Angela Merkel, HAMBURGER MORGENPOST today p.2), a very vague sentence which can only show a direction and which knows and wants that.

And then the love of the home country. Angela Merkel called for it. With this she now ran into the Möllemann-knife in parts of the press. For the love of the home country had been a value under Hitler, and this is why it later had been rejected more and more. Listen to what this sounds like today, out of the mouth of the HAMBURGER MORGENPOST chief moralist Wolf Heckmann: "She did not elaborate on the love of the home contry thing too much, well knowing that this over-ripe fruit stinks alone by the reason of its age. Yet it will be tossed on the lower floors as a projectile. And the chairwoman (i.e. Merkel) will be as innoscent as the collegue in the FDP (i.e. Möllemann)."

This means: who as a German loves Germany is about as bad as the "anti-Semites". Yet, if now love is being prohibited or ridiculed, then nobody may be surprised if people wish that all those nihilist Heckmen are sent to retirement, before they make a fuss about that Germans wear shoes, because the nazis also wore shoes. I myself, at any rate, will not let my love be spoilt by some fossilized grumpy-faces, who still want to live in the second world war and who are preaching guilt in order to bring people down. (18.06.02)
(German version)


In October 1985 Ignaz Bubis and other members of the Frankfurt Jewish Community prevented the theater premier of the Fassbinder piece "Der Müll, die Stadt und der Tod" in which the stereotype image of the "rich Jew" was displayed. Out of this context comes the quote of a German Jew which is very topical again today:

"Reconciliation is an absolutely meaningless concept... The heirs of the Jew murdering state offer the victims and the descendants of the victims reconciliation and are bitter when this word is refused. In reality, they deserve nothing else than to carry the heavy historical responsibility, for generations, forever." (Michel Friedman, Source: Gerhard Frey (Hrsg.): Prominente ohne Maske, Band 2, München 1986, p. 106, thanx Sabine)

I've been thinking about this quote for some time and I agree that the Germans have to carry their historical responsibility forever. Yet I probably have a different conception of what this means. Rightnow in the news program "Report from Berlin" I saw German Jewish reactions on the Möllemann thing. "I would never have thought that I have to experience such a thing again", said a man whose family was deported in the war. "I still feel moreorless secure", said a young woman, but you would always have to justify Israel's policy.

For me the historical responsibility means that I refuse violence and fight violence against minorities (and also majorities). The Jews in Germany did not receive such a violence from Herr Möllemann and nor from Herr Karsli, this is why I do not understand the reactions. I respect the memory and also the fears of the Jews and the Israelis, but not the revelry in it. And it is very easy for a Jew to say: "It is very easy for you to say such a thing, because you have not experienced our suffering."

The Palestinians do receive such a violence since decades, and therefore my historical responsibility tells me to care for them. The late Professor Leibovitz, who I have a lot of respect for and who in the documentary film "Izkor - Slaves of Memory" from 1991 compared the respective histories of Germany and Israel and who saw major similarities in them which German politicians are not allowed to see, was asked which lesson one could learn from the Shoah, and he replied that there is no lesson, because it all was so meaningless.

I can see what he means, but I have a different view. Of course there are lessons from history which we need for the future. In this Israeli film which the German channel 2 (ZDF) brought some days ago, the educational system in Israel is shown and it is very nationalist. The youths who were interviewed there were completely without orientation and said that they would do everything that is demanded from them, killing also. The most prominent aspect of the film, however, was that each and every converstion and every sentence was about Israel, its defense, its glorious past, its power, its weakness, its this and its that, always Israel Israel. It became clear to me that here the Palestinians are not even noticed. The conflict is, the enemy is, but not the Palestinians. Strange, since they are living just next door.

The quote above must not be abused to silence the Germans, now this gotta be clear. For the quote does not say anything about what this historical responsibility looks like. This can have the effect that some people feel intimidated so that they think the lesson from the war would be not to say anything against (or about) Jews or that it reads: "Never again anti-Semitismus in Germany!" But this would be a rough and negligent, biasing specification, because the lesson surely reads: "Never again authoritarian states and the persecution of minorities in the whole world!" And this lesson is valid for everybody without exceptions. Where is the problem at all? Could it possibly be the dogma that a victim group cannot alter into a perpetrator group? Well, if it is this - this can easily be proven wrong by means of sociology, psychology, common sense, and facts. (14.06.02)
(German version)


The press is reporting about new threats of the Qaida terrorists. It is a strange feeling for me: on the one hand I share a lot of the criticizm toward the West, on the other hand I totally reject violent threats and actions like what they did. I can also hardly deny the menace that is coming from the terrorists and I support their arrest. At the same time I feel threatened by the Americans, because their policy is standing on a doubtful moral basis and tends to violence. The world conflict is is getting clearer from month to month, on different levels. How will humanity solve this conflict, and how long will it take them? An interesting question. (11.06.02)
(German version)


A jolt is going through Germany: the students are standing up. See how they demonstrate! These people finally have enough: they want more! They demand better facilities and circumstances. Justice, oh yes, for they are the future. The mental elite of the country. And victims, them also. They have to carry out part-time jobs, they have obligations, they have trouble with their parents, with the car, with the printer, they have enough of life, the class-rooms are crammed, no orientation whatsoever, bad food in the cafeteria, problems in the relationship, in fear of the future, red-tape. Ey listen, they are doing all this for you people! So you do something for your students! (11.06.02)
(German version)

"I can really rock ooh I can do it. I can really rock ooh I can do it.
I can really rock ooh I can do it. - I can do it I can do it I can really move."

(The Rubettes)


Spiderman, the super hero, was created in the 60s, when young men still dreamed about saving the world. This is what the German magazine DIE ZEIT writes on page 64, on the "I have a dream" page (see statement
DIE ZEIT). In this episode, Tobey Maguire, the Spiderman actor, is dreaming and this is actually an interesting case in respect to sociology. Here are some translated quotes of Maguire's:

"Dreams to my mind are something unreachable or, at best, the hope to create something unreachable. I cannot relate to that. (...) When I dream of peace on earth, then this is just not realistic. (...) I assume that many people have huge dreams of the kind: I want to abolish famine in the world or get real rich. But I think it is not worth it to ponder things that aren't realistic."
"...but this is not how the world is. And I have to accept that. I cannot play God. I don't know what is the best for humanity."
About feelings: "They are only feelings! We can take a step back, watch them, become aware of them, and then act, even if it is against our feelings. Then the feelings evaporate."
In contradiction he goes on: "This is what prowing up means for me: to be aware what is going on around oneself, and to take care that people around you are well."

A destroyed personality is introducing himself here, for whom peace and feelings are - not like in a movie - are unrealistic. Without orientation, when he brings the fight against famine and the pursuit of fortune under one category. An adaptive sneak ("I have to accept that") and rationalizer. It is a presumption to Maguire to want to abolish famine: "I don't know what is the best for humanity." Consequently, Maguire will also reject others who engage themselves in the fight for peace and who thus "play God."

DIE ZEIT seems to quite like that. You get the impression. But of course one has to consider that Hitler also had had bold dreams and we all could see where this led to. Insofar, a sceptical approach toward dreams are by all means appropriate. Tobey Maguire understood the game: you have to show that you can see the injustice in the world, so everybody knows you are not stupid, and then you got to show that you don't involve yourself and that you accept "reality" for good sham reasons. This is important, because millions of kids identify with Spiderman. You got to make it clear that all this is only a game and that behind the mask there is a modest guy who does not want to play God, who, according to his duties, acts against his feelings and who... suffers. Thanks a lot, dear ZEIT editorial, for this object of study, see you later. (09.06.02) (German version)


"Art that does not want to have a political effect would not be contemporary." (President Rau on the art exhibition Documenta 11 in Kassel)

"One is waiting for the times to change, the other grabs it tight for he's got brains."
(Dante, quoted on the homepage of the
jolt: www.deutschland-packts-an.de)

"When he insults Friedman he insults all the Jews." (Paul Spiegel about Möllemann, from the FRANKFURTER RUNDSCHAU)

(German version)

The essay: Present and Past from 07.06.02 is about five pages long (17.500 chars).


In the very known news program the "Tagesthemen" journalist Ulrich Wickert made it clear today that we are not only talking about criticizing Israel anymore, but also about criticizing the German government and about the tone of the criticism. Here is Uli Wickert in original translation: "Both Jürgen Möllemann and Guido Westerwelle want to break taboos and to violate the rules in order to make the Free Democratic Party (FDP) a protest party. They have not yet told us against what they are protesting, but Möllemann is demonstrating the manner of the protest. He calls the chancellor a knilch (sort of dwarf), defense minister Scharping he calls a cucumber, and the government a pipe troup. This enraged former president Roman Herzog so that the conservative politician announced according to the basic democratic consent ("Grundkonsens"): 'I do not want the government of my country to be talked about like that.' But balanced, this is not what it is, the language of protest. Joachim Wagner invesigates where this can lead to..."

It follows a feature by Joachim Wagner about Susanne Thaler, who had been a directing member of the FDP and who is accusing Möllemann, because he is "grazing" right-wing votes. Wagner: "To her mind the debate about Möllemann and Karsli has left deep traces in the Jewish community and has lowered the inhibition grade for anti-Semitic utterances. By means of calculated taboo breakings. Thaler: "The worst tings is that this terrible sentence has become so independent: Well, it can't be forbidden to... talk about that, it can't be forbidden to criticize Israel. The infamy to have built up such a taboo which not only Möllemann, but also Westerwelle has been serving, this can never be made undone." After that, president of cabinet council Clement got the chance to say that Karsli is contributing to "dissension (Unfrieden)" by propagating anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, and anti-Jewish thoughts. "We do not want that in this country." There would be no scoulding from foreign counries yet, so the program went on, but who knows whether this cannot change.

Here we can witness how the story immediately turns from the naughtyness against the government to anti-Semitism, did you notice? Ulrich Wickert's logic is this: first, Möllemann calls the government (rightly, by the way) a pipe troup, then follow the deep traces in the Jewish community. In order to avoid anti-Semitism - to follow this logic - one should or must not talk about the government "like that" (Herzog) and one should or must not break any taboos or violate rules. This is called the "basic democratic consent", very interesting. In former times they simply called it authoritarian. This is how the times changed. Struwwelpeter calling again, the children's picture book from the emperor's age.

I am , actually, of the opinion that the press here is leading itself to believe in a sort of cosy sham world, vaguely hoping that the public has become completely stupid now and also believes in it. Well, it did not work with me. I rather assume that Uli Wickert, after this Arundhati Roy thing (
Anis Online reported), realized that he is getting old. Now, it is not forbidden to say that, is it? I'm a bit confused, cause things are happening so fast these days. (06.06.02) (German version)

NB on 02 Dec. 0202: Möllemann on Anis Online (blue dot is English version): Statements JAMAL KARSLI, MÖLLEMANN, MÖLLEMANN (2), MÖLLEMANN (3) *, GYSI, DEMOKRATIE ! *, MÖLLEMANN (4) *, FRIEDMAN *, TAGESTHEMEN *, LIEBE *, ZITATE 08.06. *, DEUTSCHE / JUDEN *; - Essay Political Superstition, Essay Right-Wing Populism, Essay Present and Past, FAKED MÖLLEMANN INTERVIEW, WARHOL MEETS FRIEDMAN


Today Herr Möllemann, under the relief of the solar system, apologized to the German Jews in the local parliament in Düsseldorf in case he hurt their feelings. When a journalist asked him about Friedman he said that this apology is meant for everybody except for Herr Friedman who slapped the hand that was held out to him. He also said, Herr Friedman should come down from his high horse. I did not hear any quote in which there was more than that.

Herr Friedman, in the "Heute-Journal", replied to this saying that Herr Möllemann would not cease to make him, Friedman, a - quote: - "bad Jew (böser Jude)" and that he seems to not be aware what kind of dangers he is conjuring up with this. Yet, Herr Möllemann by no means called or made him the bad Jew, he just expressed his personal displeasure, because he does not like Herr Friedman, which is his right. I really wonder why Herr Friedman said that about the bad Jew. He also called Möllemann's statements an "after-kick" and therefore - you just got to imagine this! - denied him the right to join the public discourse. That was in the "Tagesthemen" news tonight.

Herr Paul Spiegel from the Central Council of German Jews also still refuses any talk with Möllemann because of his new utterances. His quote in the "Tagesthemen": "This is what we'll have to talk about, how it will go on. That there will be no anti-Semitism coming from this country ever more. That the people in this country comprehend that the talk is not about us, about minorities, but about the whole population. About democracy in this country."

I must admit that I feel rather fooled when Paul Spiegel, in the name of the Jews, wants to tell me what democracy is. A man who plays down Israel's human rights violations and who deliberately approves of violence in the direction of the Palestinians. As I cannot detect the meaning of Spiegel's quote, especially in respect to the salient bad position of Israel-critical parts of the population, I understand his quote like this: "This is what we'll have to talk about, how it will go on. That there will be no anti-Semitism coming from this country ever more. That the people in this country comprehend that the talk is about us and about the whole population that supports us. About pro-Semitism in this country." At least, this is coherent. When Uri Avnery was asked how his relation to the Central Council was he told the Deutschlandfunk some time ago that since the death of Ignaz Bubis there has been no contact. I think I can imagine why this is so. (06.06.02)
(German version)



If it was only about saying: "In case I hurt the feelings of Jewish people I want to apologize", then he could have got this cheaper. Obviously, Herr Möllemann has also missed the major deal of his arguments, otherwise one would have heard about it. His correct approach to open up the repressive social discourse in Germany was taken to be populistic. So his greatest political mistake was the 18 % campaign. Seemingly and to my displeasure Herr Möllemann is not fit for the discourse and is not advised by people who are. I am driven to the conclusion that Herr Möllemann has not more than a feeling about what he started with his article in the NEUES DEUTSCHLAND and his Sharon criticizm. Otherwise he would have spared out a couple of mistakes and rather used possibilities that were open to him.

Why didn't he see that the press and the politicians had to admit publically that they cherish a taboo and that they had to call it by its name. (e.g. in the
current SPIEGEL headline and on page 33 of the current issue of DIE ZEIT. Also note the strange overexitement for pro-Sharon Friedman in the FRANKFURTER RUNDSCHAU). These media admitted that there are certain issues which are not tackled publically. So it is not about fighting ideologies, but it is fighting questions and issues. This clearly is an anti-democratic tendency. While the first accusation against Herr Karsli was about his word "nazi methods", the new accusation is only about somebody else writing about nazi methods - Shraga Elam - and Karsli only liked it. That sufficed at that stage.

The taboo leads to the increasing outlawing of less sharp criticizm and to suspicious minds, because the politicians and the journalists more and more avoid to step into the vicinity of the taboo. They keep a sort of security distance. Self-censoring is the usual word for that. The society has a mechanism which produces a state of undisturbance for a certain, fixed and systematic mentality by means of creating precedents like the one of Karsli/Möllemann. In this mentality, which is settled beyond criticizm, the discourse about the political situation in the world accords with the openly displayed dogmatic consent of the "special relation (Sonderverhältnis)" of the Jews and the Israelis in respect to the German guilt. This special relation is problematic insofar as it is covering current Israeli human rights violations. Yet the public discourse is being disconnected. To the expense of the Arabs the reminding of guilt is declared guilt, and the own guilt thereby is repressed to accord with the taboo. This ideology stands on the fundament of the assertion that the own camp is spreading enough Sharon criticizm, meaning that press and politics hold their own control claim to be sufficient and that this would be the measure for everybody to adopt. The fact that this mentality is supporting Sharon is rejected with the redundant explanation that the own camp is spreading enough Sharon criticizm.

So Herr Möllemann did not recognize that his provocations led the press to making many mistakes (once again). They admitted - and I stress DIE ZEIT, the FR, the SZ and the SPIEGEL explicitly - that they don't fight Hitler (with all their might), but they fight that he is reminded of. This leads to a situation where some questions may not even be asked in Germany, if the talk is about Israel, like the justified question inhowfar a victim group for reasons of compensation can turn into a perpetrator group at another stage. Questions like this cannot be asked, because they could hurt the feelings of the Jews and the Israelis. Without being prepared for it, Mölli proved the authoritarian society. Congratulations, Germany, and congratulations, Herr Möllemann! (06.06.02) (German version)

NB on 02 Dec. 0202: Möllemann on Anis Online (blue dot is English version): Statements JAMAL KARSLI, MÖLLEMANN, MÖLLEMANN (2), MÖLLEMANN (3) *, GYSI, DEMOKRATIE ! *, MÖLLEMANN (4) *, FRIEDMAN *, TAGESTHEMEN *, LIEBE *, ZITATE 08.06. *, DEUTSCHE / JUDEN *; - Essay Political Superstition, Essay Right-Wing Populism, Essay Present and Past, FAKED MÖLLEMANN INTERVIEW, WARHOL MEETS FRIEDMAN

The essay: Right-Wing Populism from 01.06.02

The essay: Muslim Superstition from 31.05.02

The essay: Political Superstition from 30.05.02


I took a (reluctant) look at yesterday's papers, the NEUES DEUTSCHLAND, the TAZ, SPIEGEL ONLINE, the FR, the SZ, DIE WELT, and with one eye also the FAZ. I also saw the Beckmann interview and came to the conclusion that Jürgen W. Möllemann makes use of his democratic right to express his opinion and he clearly distanced himself from anti-Semitic reproaches. In the reactions to his contribution in the NEUES DEUTSCHLAND yesterday he showed the structural violence which is trying to oppress a democratic discourse in our country. It is his achievment to have shown the undemocratic traces in the German press and the political parties par excellence. For this Herr Möllemann has my respect and my admiration. In the Beckmann interview he showed self-possession, clarity, souvereignty, and fairness. Yesterday morning I thought that on 22 September I will vote for the PDS, but today I think I will vote for Möllemann.

It is also my duty as a multiplyer to support Herr Möllemann today, for he is being prejudiced. This is a shame for our country. Here I (reluctantly) present some examples out of the press:

The "red card" from the NEUES DEUTSCHLAND. For what reason the red card? That was not justified through arguments. Herr Broder in DER SPIEGEL calls Möllemann an anti-Semite even in the title. This is not justified and therefore a defamation. The FRANKFURTER RUNDSCHAU gestured unbearably. "Now the democrats are asked" and "right-wing populism" and "We mustn't irritate our relationship with the Central Council of German Jews and with the Israelis". The SÜDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG was even worse. Heribert Prantl yesterday wrote there that Herr Möllemann is the "Paulinchen" of today that is playing with fire. Whether Möllemann is able to take any advise. That went up to comparisons with thieves and manslaughter (!). A scandal. Revealing that Prantl bases his arguments on the morals of the pitch-authoritarian Struwwelpeter book. The only argument of these commentators is that others could interpret something bad into Möllemann. And that's about it. Or take the FAZ, mumbles something anti-Palestinian about a purified Fischer. The most incredible statement, however, is from Sharon. He is exactly the right person to warn Germany and tell them to be good to the Jews. Sabra-&-Shatila Sharon, Jenin Scharon, political assassinations Sharon, we build new settlements Sharon, this man is now admonishing the Germans! And what otherwise, will he enter Berlin with his tanks and make a curfew??

The best article yesterday was Matthias Matussek's "Right to Anger" on SPIEGEL ONLINE. Address:

In conclusion it remains to say about the German press yesterday that it is providing positive prejudices for Jews which in their result are injust and anti-Palestinian. Concerning the thing with Friedman: it does not remotely justify the inquisitory and unworthy fuss that was made about Herr Möllemann yesterday. (28.05.02)

PS: After that Herr Möllemann today even apologized for his unsensitive manners in respect to Herr Friedman there is no more reason to keep the campaign against the FDP politician going. (German version)

NB on 02 Dec. 0202: Möllemann on Anis Online (blue dot is English version): Statements JAMAL KARSLI, MÖLLEMANN, MÖLLEMANN (2), MÖLLEMANN (3) *, GYSI, DEMOKRATIE ! *, MÖLLEMANN (4) *, FRIEDMAN *, TAGESTHEMEN *, LIEBE *, ZITATE 08.06. *, DEUTSCHE / JUDEN *; - Essay Political Superstition, Essay Right-Wing Populism, Essay Present and Past, FAKED MÖLLEMANN INTERVIEW, WARHOL MEETS FRIEDMAN


Now please Herr Gysi? What kind of argument is this supposed to be: "Decisive is not whether Möllemann himself is an anti-Semite; decisive is that he has no inhibitions to use anti-Semitic prejudices." (NEUES DEUTSCHLAND p 4 today) That's like: "It does not matter who you are, what matters is what people think who you might be!" Or like: "We don't only need a buffer zone, but we need a buffer zone for the buffer zone." Well then, who is going to decide what an anti-Semitic prejudice is? You yourself, obviously. And Friedman, of course. Paul Spiegel, sure. The chancellor. Joschka Fischer, logical. And they can select a couple of journalist, and that's it, then.

No! Gysi is wrong. All this is not Möllemann. It is only what Gysi made of Möllemann. An inadmissible abstraction to random possible cases. Gysi conjures up what Möllemann did not say! Others are to believe that Möllemann said what Gysi or Reents said. Möllemann did not romantisize anything, Gysi did. Möllemann wrote a politological article, an analysis which one can call good or bad, but he did not even remotely say anything terrible or strange.

"He cut the tablecloth", what nonsense. Gysi cut it, a blind man can see that! Anyway, decisive is not whether Gysi himself is an anti-Möllist; decisive is that he has no inhibitions to use anti-Möllist prejudices. (27.05.02)
(German version)

NB on 02 Dec. 0202: Möllemann on Anis Online (blue dot is English version): Statements JAMAL KARSLI, MÖLLEMANN, MÖLLEMANN (2), MÖLLEMANN (3) *, GYSI, DEMOKRATIE ! *, MÖLLEMANN (4) *, FRIEDMAN *, TAGESTHEMEN *, LIEBE *, ZITATE 08.06. *, DEUTSCHE / JUDEN *; - Essay Political Superstition, Essay Right-Wing Populism, Essay Present and Past, FAKED MÖLLEMANN INTERVIEW, WARHOL MEETS FRIEDMAN


After that Corinna May had so bad luck in the Grand Prix, German songwriter Ralph Siegel used rude language against her. It is to say here that Siegel is one of the most responsible persons for making Germany an under-developed country in respect to music. (27.05.02)
(German version)

ATTAC (3):

As the NEUE DEUTSCHLAND writes today ATTAC Germany sees itself now, after the 6. Assembly (Ratschlag) in Frankfurt, as part of the peace movement, because it is against German war participations and because it demonstrated against Bush. This self-definition enrages me, because ATTAC did not say a word to Jenin and because it is supporting Sharon's anti-UNO policy by lack of intervention. There are Palestine infos on some regional ATTAC Webpages, but no clear statement. I myself have been regarding this silence ever since as anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, and all in all inhumane and scandalous. I am still waiting for a clear word from ATTAC and from the PDS about the human rights violations of Israel. ATTAC, a peace movement? No. (27.05.02)
(German version)


Today's contribution of Jürgen W. Möllemann's ("Into the new time") in the newspaper NEUES DEUTSCHLAND was taken as an opportunity to strip Herr Möllemann completely in the German press today. Herr Gysi said, Möllemann was "in Haider's track", and the other media see the time to take Möllemann apart now. He would go too far now, because he said "Haider" and "Fortuyn". He would be "messianic" and "the Haider of Germany" (Gysi). A shout is going through the German press today, and red cards are raised.

Now, I just wanted to write something positive about the PDS which seemed to me to be in a constructive process of renewal... But no, all these things cannot be derived from the Möllemanns ND contribution. He did not at all regard extreme right politicians as harmless, but he deliberately took a stand against right-left-thinking and talked about an "emancipation of the democrats", because governments are being voted against which do not keep their promises. In this article there is nothing which is anti-democratic or extremely right. Sorry. But today is the day of hysteria. All this is nonsense stuff. Möllemanns article in the NEUES DEUTSCHLAND is harmless. The renewal that he sees and that he demands is necessary indeed, and indeed we are living a new time.

My Möllemann criticizm remains anyway, because - as I said before - the trench-fightings distract from Palestine and do not lead to results. Herr Möllemann, don't talk about the new time, be it! (27.05.02)
(German version)

NB on 02 Dec. 0202: Möllemann on Anis Online (blue dot is English version): Statements JAMAL KARSLI, MÖLLEMANN, MÖLLEMANN (2), MÖLLEMANN (3) *, GYSI, DEMOKRATIE ! *, MÖLLEMANN (4) *, FRIEDMAN *, TAGESTHEMEN *, LIEBE *, ZITATE 08.06. *, DEUTSCHE / JUDEN *; - Essay Political Superstition, Essay Right-Wing Populism, Essay Present and Past, FAKED MÖLLEMANN INTERVIEW, WARHOL MEETS FRIEDMAN


After that the Likud party announced that it will not let a Palestinian state happen, after Jenin and after the latest UN resolutions, the Palestinians have better arguments than ever before. The world says yes to the state of Palestine, Israel says no. It needs a great deal of stupidity to not be able to use these facts politically and instead to exhaust oneself in meaningless trench-fightings. Herr Jürgen W. Möllemann, the Middle East voice of the German liberal party and head of the German Arab Society, even managed with the help of Jamal Karsli to actually worsen the reputation of the Arabs and the Muslims in Germany in this situation.

According to what I know now, neither Palestine nor the rights of the Arabs are the issues of Herr Möllemann and also Herr Karsli, but it is their issue to be against. Against Israel, against the "zionist lobby", and against the media. This is not enough. Who fights, has to fight for something, not only against something. And 18 per cent of the voters are no good motif, either. As long as Herr Möllemann and his companions are spoiling their (completely justified) criticizm of Israel with camp thinking and victim thinking without even having positive visions to offer, they harm the Muslims in Germany and the case of the Palestinians.

By defining himself merely against other people, Herr Möllemannn will not reach anything. The task rather is to unite the pro-Palestinian groups and to support them in creating a new Palestinian culture and identity, in order to get to a natural peace. If Herr Möllemann canot believe in this he should not be a politician, but should wear a uniform. The point is to show the Israelis and their friends that the Palestinians are human beings who have human rights. Jürgen W. Möllemann is not able to carry out this job. For these reasons I must take a stand against Herr Möllemann, for I am for peace in the world. (25.05.02)
(German version)

NB on 02 Dec. 0202: Möllemann on Anis Online (blue dot is English version): Statements JAMAL KARSLI, MÖLLEMANN, MÖLLEMANN (2), MÖLLEMANN (3) *, GYSI, DEMOKRATIE ! *, MÖLLEMANN (4) *, FRIEDMAN *, TAGESTHEMEN *, LIEBE *, ZITATE 08.06. *, DEUTSCHE / JUDEN *; - Essay Political Superstition, Essay Right-Wing Populism, Essay Present and Past, FAKED MÖLLEMANN INTERVIEW, WARHOL MEETS FRIEDMAN


As I happened to have noticed only now, the cover of this week's news magazine DER STERN shows our Herr Chancellor in the nude (see German version). This will surely have please him. The mentioned picture is related to the upcoming German elections in September and is meant to illustrate the metaphor of the naked facts, or something like that. You can always find a reason. Of course, DER STERN is aware of the fact that the cover would polarize and so the homepage in front position has critical feedbacks from readers, saying things like approximately that this would be cheap dirt.

Of course, these readers firstly have no sense of humor, and secondly they don't know the difference between cheap dirt and the freedom of the press. Why did we have the era of Enlightenment at all and all these things? To make prudish covers? Well, there you are. The people from DER STERN just cracked a joke, that's all. Like pupils who put a farting cushion on the teacher's chair. So what? Besides, DER STERN is indispensable in our society, because without it His Majesty DER SPIEGEL would not know where to relate to. (22.05.2002)
(German version)


The newspaper DIE TAGESZEITUNG yesterday published the German original of the following reader's mail:

"Pop and Commerce
Subject: "The Signs of the Riot", taz from 4. 5. 02

The thesis that pop is a profane economy good is interesting to me. It seems to me as if this was rather the point-of-view of the soberly reflecting journalist. When John wrote "Revolution" he wrote pop music, and he knew that, because he felt it. The song is genuine and can inherently be understood as being genuine. That people later would make commerce with it, even John himself, has nothing to do with that.

The materialistic side of Rock'n'Roll altogether seems to be a sort of children's ailment, caused by the loss of former values like obedience and force and by gaining freedom and fun as new values through the creation of pop. It is difficult to separate freedom and fun from the material, even for inspired pop artists. The material also serves to connect the artist with the values of his surroundings. But commerce by itself in my definiton is not pop, it is only the material proof of its fitness in a world which does not acknowledge other proofs. ANIS HAMADEH, Kiel" (11 May 02)

"Say you want a revolution, well you know, we all wanna change the world"
(The Beatles)