Vorzeigeracket …

27. Februar 2010

Bundespolizei.


Sprachhygiene

15. Februar 2010

„Wir bedanken uns bei allen Teilnehmern für ihren beispiellosen Einsatz und ihr diszipliniertes Auftreten. Wir hoffen, daß alle wohlbehalten wieder zu Hause angekommen sind und es nicht zu größeren Schmeißfliegenverunreinigungen kam.“

[source: hxxp://www.jlosachsen.de]

„Auf diese Weise ist die Ungeziefer-Metaphorik auch eindeutig und unmissverständlich – und das im doppelten Sinn: Sie ist innerhalb eines symbolischen Sinnkollektivs eindeutig in ihrer Aussage und ihrer Drohung, zugleich zaubert sie aber auch Eindeutigkeit in eine widersprüchliche und ambivalente, nicht verstandene Welt. Sie sorgt für Klärung und verspricht das Verschwinden von Angst, Verunsicherung, Kontrollverlust und Ohnmacht. Als Surrogat für Aufklärung fordert sie dafür die Vernichtung.“

[source]


Bruhn spricht (englisch).

10. Februar 2010

How did the ”Nie Wieder Deutschland” campaign take place? What groups and individuals were involved? How many can be fairly identified as anti-German?

In Frankfurt 20.000 Militants were on the streets. I estimate that half of them wore the black-red-gold-banner of the better Germany (”Neues Deutschland”) in the east.

The absolute majority were ordinary leftist, i.e. people without any critique of state-capitalism, Leninism etc. pp, who shouted out for the dubious right of national self-determination, but hated those eastern German manifestations à la ”Kommt die D-Mark bleiben wir, kommt sie nicht, gehn wir zu ihr”. They remained captivated by the nation; they were blinded by the form of nation. This was a self-contradiction that paralyzed them: Self-determination for the Palestinians, but not for the eastern part of Germany.

At the same time this demonstration was the last carnival of dogmatism – for many years I have not seen that many DKP, KPD/ML, MLPD and other Stalinist mummies. Did you know that the symbol of the official communist party, the DKP, was the German flag? It really was a ”D”KP.

(By the way: Let me tell you a little story to clarify the percentage of anti-German communists at that manifestation: In early 1990 we published a number of our ”Kritik & Krise” with the title: ”Nie wieder Deutschland”. Because of this a left-wing ”anti-dogmatic” student group (”Linke Liste”) from the Frankfurt university invited me to hold a speech on the final manifestation on Römer square under the condition that I had to present my speech the day before to a cadre of this group – Andreas Fanizadeh, later known as a member of the editorial board of ”Die Beute”, a real Foucault-ian magazine. My thesis was that the anti-German left had to confront all anti-Zionist tendencies, and I developed this in giving a survey on these groups in the Rhein-Main-area. Fanizadeh censored this survey and I couldn‘t hold my speech, because he argued: We have to fight the main enemy, and my critique would only produce division and useless polemics.)

[…]

When did the concept of class struggle become relegated to the sidelines among anti-Germans?

Leo Löwenthal, a comrade of Theodor W. Adorno, has been asked the same question once. He said: Not I am a traitor of the working class, but working class has betrayed me and the revolution too. For me the central theme of the ”anti-Germans” is how to think revolution in a state of society, in which the working class has abandoned its own genuine former telos. In my opinion the (symbolic) date of this treason seems to be the 20th January 1942, the day of the Wannsee conference – a day when the ultimate necessity of the workers world revolution coincided with the total absence of the working class, indicating its total integration into the system of the ”Volksgemeinschaft”. On the 20th January the notion of class and class struggle definitely changed. Since then class struggle has been an ideology – see the essay of Theodor W. Adorno, Reflexionen zur Klassentheorie, written in 1942.

[…]

Is it true that a left-wing pro-Israel position, whether moderate or hardline, is not just confined to the anti-German currents? If so, is this a result of the influence of the anti-German critique?

No. In October 2006 Angela Merkel declared that the existence of Israel belongs to the very core of the German ”raison d‘Etat” (”Staatsräson”). This point of view means that the new Germany looks upon the Jews as classic ”Schutzjuden” and tries to make a deal to functionalize them. This has been prepared for decades by the DIG – Deutsch-Israelische Gesellschaft/German-Israeli-Society – which is a very strong ideological state apparatus (Althusser). Completely bound to state fetishism –all the parties of parliament are represented in its directory– the DIG represents the geopolitical aspirations of Germany concerning the Middle East with special regard to Israel, meanwhile the Deutsch-Arabische Gesellschaft (former president: Jürgen Möllemann) represents the same in regard to the Muslims. Some anti-German activists, for example Matthias Küntzel, are engaged in these DIG-structures and they find a great audience – but these anti-Germans don‘t argue in a materialist manner.“

[„Who are the Anti-Germans?“ Interview von Stephen Cheng mit Joachim Bruhn, Mai 2007]

Kann man auch mal wieder lesen: „Who are the Anti-Germans?“, Interview von Stephen Cheng mit sinistra!. Diskussion des Interviews hier.