Critical theory might not be totalitarian in its nature, but it is authoritarian in its rejection of facts before the voice of the interpreter of said facts. As an academic, how often have you heard yourself, colleagues or students argue that something is True based on it having been said by [Named Authority] in political/social science/humanities?
"As [insert name here] proved in his/hers [name of text], ..."
Because what has happened from 1990 to today is that "argued" has been replaced with "proved" in sentences such as the preceding one. If Adorno or Foucault or Habermas or Schmidt says that (made-up quote) "The economic structure of society mimics the structure of the family in that the one possessoing the most capacity for violence, the Father; thus it follows that in order to establish greater economic equlity and fair distribution of goods, the Father must be toppled from his pedestal as the definer of things.", well that doesn't make it true. A logical argument is logical, not true, unless all the premises can be proven true (which they can't in my made-up example).
But now, an argument is either true or false depending on which authority voices it and if the authority does so according to dogma.
You're correct, and I'd add but one more thing: Critical Theory was all about the combination of Liberalism (as a principle) with a kind of (for lack of a better term) 'soft-materialist' analysis of state and society.
Postmodernism has, effectively, substituted analysis of the conditions of life (materialism, if you like, both in its Liberal and Marxist-Leninist iterations) and prospects of the future with the study of something as anodyne and 'fluid' (pun intended) as 'POWER'. Being both abstract and concrete at the same time, it doesn't have to be defined or measured against a consistent set of principles, values, or the like. It's perfect, if you don't want to say anything that reeks of convictions, ideological, spiritual, or otherwise.
And it means, in practical terms, the self-anointment of a caste of high priests, so to speak, which is both authoritarian and pre-scientific. In effect, while I'm hesitant to use the term 'pseudo-scholastic'--mainly because scholastics had a set of core ethical beliefs (mainly Christian) that they applied in all their doings--it's also the most apt one: power, being the one and only thing that matters, becomes a thing unto itself; its study, it follows, is similarly the one and only thing that matters.
Hence, everyone who does anything else is, eo ipso, irrelevant, nevermind the fact that, terminologically, there's no accepted definition (and thus there cannot be any analysis). It's therefore illogical to the extreme, unscientific, and, at the same time, such a pseudo-scholastic approach also allows for arbitrary considerations.
It's authoritarianism plus the arbitrary exercise of 'power' that, unlike in the Middle Ages, isn't guided, however imperfectly, by spirituality and morals. It's therefore much worse than 'pure' authoritarianism as these 'arguments' are at the same time infused with arrogance that is entirely devoid of anything like personal convictions, morality, or societal utility.
We've arrived full circle back at where we were (and back then by dire necessity) some 35 000 years ago. As long as the box isn't forced open, power rests as an abstract with the holder of it; when it is opened power becomes concrete and defined.
Leading to people trying to appease the holder so the box remains closed.
My friend, believe me, I don't enjoy writing these pieces. And I cannot tell you how much I'd long to be wrong about it (but, as you very well know as a long-time reader, I fear that I'll continue to be correct about it).
Remember Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451? The most uncanny part, to me, is this:
'Most people stopped reading books long before they were ever burned.'
Apparently, most people stopped being appalled by the historical record, imagined themselves to be the Scholl siblings, Pastor Niemöller, or Franz Jägerstätter; the sad truth is: most gladly put on brownshirts.
Yet, I also, and firmly so, believe that this is what we must: gaze into the abyss.
We all have a choice: recoil in disgust, speak up, and act. Or, as exhibited by so many these days, join the pack and start howling.
I happen to think about 'Covid' as a 'retirement reform' in the most literal sense: everybody knows that pension benefits will never be paid; in some cases, the pension funds have been looted (here's looking at you, Black Rock, Vanguard, State Street et al.), but even that recognition misses the point.
It's apparently about balancing the books.
As you write, the parallels are endless. And so is the perpetrators'--and their willing executioners--depravity.
Reminds me of my high school--Gymnasium--days (graduated in 2000): everyone was 'joking' that whatever we'd pay in, it's not going to be paid out 40+ years later.
My father-in-law aleady had similar thoughts in the early 80's and consequently made minimal contributions. He is somewhat rueful about it now that he is retired and has minimal pension benefits.
I suppose we should not underestimate the ability of the system to stave off collapse much longer than would seem feasible. To paraphrase: sytemys fail in two ways first very slowly and then very suddenly. Although I am a fan of Michael Greer's model of a slow collapse interrupted by sudden "adjustments".
We will likely continue to lurch and limp from one crisis to the next for the rest of our lives all the while general living standards continue to decline and what we once considered basic democratic and constitutional rights are eroded.
A thought just struck me re: the fervour with which germans (as it appears) embraces attacking Russia via sanctions and military aid to Ukraine.
This may well be reaching (I hope it is so!) but consider the self-flagellation expected and demanded of germans, by foreigners as well as themselves, for the last 50+ years. Even or especially from germans whose parents weren't born during the nazi era; their only crime being born a german.
Greece's ridiculous demands of "reparations", regular as clockwork whenever they yet again fail to cleanup their own corruption and incompetence is but one example of how other nations plays along with this.
Is it really unreasonable to assume (here comes the reaching part) that there is a deep undercurrent of resentiment and revanchism among the germans, due to the last 50+ years of frankly deeply unfair conditioning? While the Holocaust and the rest of it was pure terror, it was far from even being in the top ten of such atrocities historically speaking. The Mongol Wars are claimed to have cause 150 000 000 deaths in their time. Are we then to treat mongols the same today? What about how the swedish armies burned their way from Östersjön to the Alps during the 30 Years War? Was it 30% of the population that was killed in someparts of what is Germany and Poland today? "Palestine has become a widow for Egypt"?
Could it be that the german politicians in their fervour to curry favour with their american pay-masters and leash-holders have awakened something in their population, something that now senses that the bars of the cage is creaking more and more?
Too wild a speculation, or is there something to it?
I think there's a lot of truth in what you write. Imagine, for a moment, what has happened: German history was 're-set' in 1945, with whatever happened before this point in time having been relegated to the states of 'original sin' almost. (Interestingly, this isn't supported by academic scholarship on these matters, at least in its 'international' manifestation.)
As such, I would posit that the current Ukrainian mess is the first possible escape route that allows for virtue-signalling in addition to being 'the necessary evil' (i.e., most notably, NATO must have had to include W Germany) and a nice-to-have add-on (NATO's aggression vs. Yugoslavia in 1999). In short: the Ukrainian conflict, while being a lot of things, is also a perfect example of this kind of postmodern madness masquerading as business as usual.
More to the point: I do think that German politicians aren't 'merely' sucking up to their American masters (and let's not forget the moneyed interests in London), they also do it out of this pathological desire to be morally on the proverbial 'right side of history'. I doubt that (concern for) the population plays a big role in either case, even though the latter aspect makes it extremely easy to reach vast segments of the population, not so much to actually support anything (much like in the US case, as long as there's no hardship involved), but to get the electorate to acquiesce.
Now, what kind of sane politician would do anything to jeopardise the well-being of the people at the same time (inflation, energy woes, supply chain issues, etc.) has perhaps a two-fold explanation: someone who holds him- or herself to be 'beyond' these concerns of mere mortals--or someone who's outright delusional. My money would be on the latter, even though the former aspect clearly applies, too.
It looks like the entire nation is venting almost 80 years of pent-up frustration.
Imagine that fervour harnessed and directed towards some other group, depending on the needs of the parties in power.
And as Sweden still often looks to Germany as Big Brother, I do have a horse in the race, to use an americanism.
---
Tangent: swedish Security Police (or Secret Police) has forbidden the burning of Koran. I think the idea is, Kristersson has been pressured by Stoltenberg to inofficially order this so that our NATO-application can be passed, because not 12 hours after the announcement that burning the Koran would not be permitted (a blanket ban like that is a direct and open violation of the swedish contritution) Turkey announced that they now expected the NATO-application to go ahead.
So I think Stoltenberg has been playing both sides towards the middle here. Erdogan gets to look good (after the quakes he needs it badly), Sweden gets into NATO which makes Kristersson's backers happy, and once whe're in he can lift the ban on burning the Koran if and when he wants, using it as leverage against the Sweden Democrats.
The ancient Byzantines may be infamous for court intrigue but I think even they would be disgusted by our present.
"For many, the memory of the Holocaust as a break with civilization is the moral foundation of the Federal Republic. To compare it with other genocides is therefore considered a heresy, an apostasy from the right faith. It is time to abandon this catechism."
"The Catechism
The Holocaust is unique because it was the unlimited Vernichtung der Juden um der Vernichtung willen(exterminating the Jews for the sake of extermination itself) distinguished from the limited and pragmatic aims of other genocides. It is the first time in history that a state had set out to destroy a people solely on ideological grounds.
It was thus a Zivilisationsbruch (civilizational rupture) and the moral foundation of the nation.
Germany has a special responsibility to Jews in Germany, and a special loyalty to Israel: “Die Sicherheit Israels ist Teil der Staatsräson unseres Landes” (Israel’s security is part of Germany’s reason of state)
Antisemitism is a distinct prejudice – and was a distinctly German one. It should not be confused with racism.
Those criticizing Habermas have lost their values if they ever had any. They are just members of a tribe and stand for nothing of substance.
Thanks for taking the time to write and expose what is taking place. I thought you might find the following video of a segment of the Jimmy Dore show interesting/depressing. It is happening everywhere
Wow, I haven't seen this. Thank you (even though I must puke now…)
One of the most curious aspects of this entire sordid affair is this: those who ride roughshod over Habermas would be the ones who, until last year, I'd argue, would have stood in awe if Habermas would have noticed their work.
As Karl Kraus (one of fin-de-siècle Vienna's leading journalists and satirists) would have held: 'when the sun of civilisation sets, even midgets cast long shadows'.
The villification of any authentic left-leaning critical voices has been quite the phenomenon to witness. I was apalled by the treatment Ulrike Guerot received on Markus Lanz's show last year when speaking about Ukraine (on German television, a public broadcaster, ZDF):
More recently, I was dismayed by the criticism of Sara Wagenknechts and peace proposal exemplarised in a debate between Sedar Somoncu and Florian Schroeder (on German radio, a public broadcaster, RadioEins):
And now Epimetheus has highlighted this unsavoury criticism of Jürgen Habermas in Die Zeit (a German weekly newspaper, throughly mainstream and representative of the left-liberal educated classes).
What can I say, I agree with Epimetheus. It's not looking good.
For me, McCarthyist blacklisting, Stasi surveillance, NS propaganda, etc. were once all exotic features of foreign historical political periods. My own adulthood has coincided with 9-11 and the rollback of constitutional rights in the USA, the lies of Weapons of Mass Destruction, pre-emptive strikes by NATO allies, the revelations from Eric Snowdon, the erosion of national sovereignty in Europe, the financial crisis and the public bailouts of private capital, the suspension of civil rights during the pandemic, and so on...
I've seen the treatment Ulrike Guerot receives. Or Sahra Wagenknecht, for that matter.
While my own standing among German-speaking media doesn't reach quite that level of notoriety, I've similarly been called names and the like for speaking up.
I thank you deeply for continuing to share with us all. I feel it’s imperative to me, and us all, to at least try to see/understand what is going on in the wider contexts (and not just the countries I can access). Without your brave voice much of mainland Europe would be a blank hole for me. Tough topics and pieces for sure... therefore even more needed and more gratitude for the work you do! I too have made my choice.
This Substack started out as a form of 'auto-therapy', but by now…well, how things have changed.
One must, I'd argue, gaze into the abyss that is one's soul, inner self, humanity, call it what you wish, the point is: we're all capable of good and bad. It's not that there aren't genuinely bad and evil individuals, but the struggle takes part in each and every individual.
Blaming someone else is easy. Always. Introspection and the recognition of one's own flaws is hard.
I have a long list of articles planned and this indeed sounds like a good addition to that list, if you catch my drift. ;)
I have been meaning to write an English article with an introduction to my website (pervaers.com) for substack as well, but I am just not getting around to it.
I think Neuengamme also had 2G rules. I was going to visit with my daughter. Maybe I was just too demoralized to even check at the time, but I vaguely remember reading it.
Oh my, I wouldn't be surprised by that; after all, Austria also contemplated 2G at the workplace…(I'll write about that in more detail tomorrow), but--I'd add that, once one has made his or her choice, life becomes 'better' again: after all, there's plenty of reasons to speak up.
This has become a moral imperative. We can only hope to break this deafening silence. I am trying to keep my expectations towards life at a minimum until then.
Every time I head such references to Kant, I'm delighted. (Most of the students I teach here have no idea about him or the Enlightenment in general, a deficiency most prominently on display on the political science graduate students I teach each autumn…)
Thanks for this post. It must of cost a great deal of mental anguish.
It is extremely disturbing and disheartening to watch the Germans succumb once again to groupthink and blind war-mongering, despite DECADES of so-called "Aufarbeitung".
Critical theory might not be totalitarian in its nature, but it is authoritarian in its rejection of facts before the voice of the interpreter of said facts. As an academic, how often have you heard yourself, colleagues or students argue that something is True based on it having been said by [Named Authority] in political/social science/humanities?
"As [insert name here] proved in his/hers [name of text], ..."
Because what has happened from 1990 to today is that "argued" has been replaced with "proved" in sentences such as the preceding one. If Adorno or Foucault or Habermas or Schmidt says that (made-up quote) "The economic structure of society mimics the structure of the family in that the one possessoing the most capacity for violence, the Father; thus it follows that in order to establish greater economic equlity and fair distribution of goods, the Father must be toppled from his pedestal as the definer of things.", well that doesn't make it true. A logical argument is logical, not true, unless all the premises can be proven true (which they can't in my made-up example).
But now, an argument is either true or false depending on which authority voices it and if the authority does so according to dogma.
Which is authoritarianism is in its purest form.
You're correct, and I'd add but one more thing: Critical Theory was all about the combination of Liberalism (as a principle) with a kind of (for lack of a better term) 'soft-materialist' analysis of state and society.
Postmodernism has, effectively, substituted analysis of the conditions of life (materialism, if you like, both in its Liberal and Marxist-Leninist iterations) and prospects of the future with the study of something as anodyne and 'fluid' (pun intended) as 'POWER'. Being both abstract and concrete at the same time, it doesn't have to be defined or measured against a consistent set of principles, values, or the like. It's perfect, if you don't want to say anything that reeks of convictions, ideological, spiritual, or otherwise.
And it means, in practical terms, the self-anointment of a caste of high priests, so to speak, which is both authoritarian and pre-scientific. In effect, while I'm hesitant to use the term 'pseudo-scholastic'--mainly because scholastics had a set of core ethical beliefs (mainly Christian) that they applied in all their doings--it's also the most apt one: power, being the one and only thing that matters, becomes a thing unto itself; its study, it follows, is similarly the one and only thing that matters.
Hence, everyone who does anything else is, eo ipso, irrelevant, nevermind the fact that, terminologically, there's no accepted definition (and thus there cannot be any analysis). It's therefore illogical to the extreme, unscientific, and, at the same time, such a pseudo-scholastic approach also allows for arbitrary considerations.
It's authoritarianism plus the arbitrary exercise of 'power' that, unlike in the Middle Ages, isn't guided, however imperfectly, by spirituality and morals. It's therefore much worse than 'pure' authoritarianism as these 'arguments' are at the same time infused with arrogance that is entirely devoid of anything like personal convictions, morality, or societal utility.
We've arrived full circle back at where we were (and back then by dire necessity) some 35 000 years ago. As long as the box isn't forced open, power rests as an abstract with the holder of it; when it is opened power becomes concrete and defined.
Leading to people trying to appease the holder so the box remains closed.
An uncomfortable sense of foreboding 😞
My friend, believe me, I don't enjoy writing these pieces. And I cannot tell you how much I'd long to be wrong about it (but, as you very well know as a long-time reader, I fear that I'll continue to be correct about it).
Remember Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451? The most uncanny part, to me, is this:
'Most people stopped reading books long before they were ever burned.'
Apparently, most people stopped being appalled by the historical record, imagined themselves to be the Scholl siblings, Pastor Niemöller, or Franz Jägerstätter; the sad truth is: most gladly put on brownshirts.
Yet, I also, and firmly so, believe that this is what we must: gaze into the abyss.
We all have a choice: recoil in disgust, speak up, and act. Or, as exhibited by so many these days, join the pack and start howling.
I've made my choice.
To me what we saw in the past 3 years was a culling. Krankenmorde.
Humans were weaponized via nucleotide-based vaccines to cause the spread of diseases that kill the frail.
The parallels are endless: http://www.detraphon.de/images/Kohlenklau.jpg
I happen to think about 'Covid' as a 'retirement reform' in the most literal sense: everybody knows that pension benefits will never be paid; in some cases, the pension funds have been looted (here's looking at you, Black Rock, Vanguard, State Street et al.), but even that recognition misses the point.
It's apparently about balancing the books.
As you write, the parallels are endless. And so is the perpetrators'--and their willing executioners--depravity.
Back in school (finished 2003) I used to say:
"I am not gonna pay into some pension fund just to give someone a reason to kill me 40 years down the road"
I was joking then.
Reminds me of my high school--Gymnasium--days (graduated in 2000): everyone was 'joking' that whatever we'd pay in, it's not going to be paid out 40+ years later.
I'm not laughing about it now.
My father-in-law aleady had similar thoughts in the early 80's and consequently made minimal contributions. He is somewhat rueful about it now that he is retired and has minimal pension benefits.
I suppose we should not underestimate the ability of the system to stave off collapse much longer than would seem feasible. To paraphrase: sytemys fail in two ways first very slowly and then very suddenly. Although I am a fan of Michael Greer's model of a slow collapse interrupted by sudden "adjustments".
We will likely continue to lurch and limp from one crisis to the next for the rest of our lives all the while general living standards continue to decline and what we once considered basic democratic and constitutional rights are eroded.
A thought just struck me re: the fervour with which germans (as it appears) embraces attacking Russia via sanctions and military aid to Ukraine.
This may well be reaching (I hope it is so!) but consider the self-flagellation expected and demanded of germans, by foreigners as well as themselves, for the last 50+ years. Even or especially from germans whose parents weren't born during the nazi era; their only crime being born a german.
Greece's ridiculous demands of "reparations", regular as clockwork whenever they yet again fail to cleanup their own corruption and incompetence is but one example of how other nations plays along with this.
Is it really unreasonable to assume (here comes the reaching part) that there is a deep undercurrent of resentiment and revanchism among the germans, due to the last 50+ years of frankly deeply unfair conditioning? While the Holocaust and the rest of it was pure terror, it was far from even being in the top ten of such atrocities historically speaking. The Mongol Wars are claimed to have cause 150 000 000 deaths in their time. Are we then to treat mongols the same today? What about how the swedish armies burned their way from Östersjön to the Alps during the 30 Years War? Was it 30% of the population that was killed in someparts of what is Germany and Poland today? "Palestine has become a widow for Egypt"?
Could it be that the german politicians in their fervour to curry favour with their american pay-masters and leash-holders have awakened something in their population, something that now senses that the bars of the cage is creaking more and more?
Too wild a speculation, or is there something to it?
Hi Rikard,
I think there's a lot of truth in what you write. Imagine, for a moment, what has happened: German history was 're-set' in 1945, with whatever happened before this point in time having been relegated to the states of 'original sin' almost. (Interestingly, this isn't supported by academic scholarship on these matters, at least in its 'international' manifestation.)
As such, I would posit that the current Ukrainian mess is the first possible escape route that allows for virtue-signalling in addition to being 'the necessary evil' (i.e., most notably, NATO must have had to include W Germany) and a nice-to-have add-on (NATO's aggression vs. Yugoslavia in 1999). In short: the Ukrainian conflict, while being a lot of things, is also a perfect example of this kind of postmodern madness masquerading as business as usual.
More to the point: I do think that German politicians aren't 'merely' sucking up to their American masters (and let's not forget the moneyed interests in London), they also do it out of this pathological desire to be morally on the proverbial 'right side of history'. I doubt that (concern for) the population plays a big role in either case, even though the latter aspect makes it extremely easy to reach vast segments of the population, not so much to actually support anything (much like in the US case, as long as there's no hardship involved), but to get the electorate to acquiesce.
Now, what kind of sane politician would do anything to jeopardise the well-being of the people at the same time (inflation, energy woes, supply chain issues, etc.) has perhaps a two-fold explanation: someone who holds him- or herself to be 'beyond' these concerns of mere mortals--or someone who's outright delusional. My money would be on the latter, even though the former aspect clearly applies, too.
Bottom line: I think you're right.
I don't want to be right.
It looks like the entire nation is venting almost 80 years of pent-up frustration.
Imagine that fervour harnessed and directed towards some other group, depending on the needs of the parties in power.
And as Sweden still often looks to Germany as Big Brother, I do have a horse in the race, to use an americanism.
---
Tangent: swedish Security Police (or Secret Police) has forbidden the burning of Koran. I think the idea is, Kristersson has been pressured by Stoltenberg to inofficially order this so that our NATO-application can be passed, because not 12 hours after the announcement that burning the Koran would not be permitted (a blanket ban like that is a direct and open violation of the swedish contritution) Turkey announced that they now expected the NATO-application to go ahead.
So I think Stoltenberg has been playing both sides towards the middle here. Erdogan gets to look good (after the quakes he needs it badly), Sweden gets into NATO which makes Kristersson's backers happy, and once whe're in he can lift the ban on burning the Koran if and when he wants, using it as leverage against the Sweden Democrats.
The ancient Byzantines may be infamous for court intrigue but I think even they would be disgusted by our present.
Have I linked to this very interesting article before? https://geschichtedergegenwart.ch/the-german-catechism/
THE GERMAN CATECHISM
"For many, the memory of the Holocaust as a break with civilization is the moral foundation of the Federal Republic. To compare it with other genocides is therefore considered a heresy, an apostasy from the right faith. It is time to abandon this catechism."
"The Catechism
The Holocaust is unique because it was the unlimited Vernichtung der Juden um der Vernichtung willen(exterminating the Jews for the sake of extermination itself) distinguished from the limited and pragmatic aims of other genocides. It is the first time in history that a state had set out to destroy a people solely on ideological grounds.
It was thus a Zivilisationsbruch (civilizational rupture) and the moral foundation of the nation.
Germany has a special responsibility to Jews in Germany, and a special loyalty to Israel: “Die Sicherheit Israels ist Teil der Staatsräson unseres Landes” (Israel’s security is part of Germany’s reason of state)
Antisemitism is a distinct prejudice – and was a distinctly German one. It should not be confused with racism.
Antizionism is antisemitism."
Those criticizing Habermas have lost their values if they ever had any. They are just members of a tribe and stand for nothing of substance.
Thanks for taking the time to write and expose what is taking place. I thought you might find the following video of a segment of the Jimmy Dore show interesting/depressing. It is happening everywhere
https://rumble.com/v29ys04-u.s.-official-loves-ukraine-neo-nazi-azov-battalion.html
Wow, I haven't seen this. Thank you (even though I must puke now…)
One of the most curious aspects of this entire sordid affair is this: those who ride roughshod over Habermas would be the ones who, until last year, I'd argue, would have stood in awe if Habermas would have noticed their work.
As Karl Kraus (one of fin-de-siècle Vienna's leading journalists and satirists) would have held: 'when the sun of civilisation sets, even midgets cast long shadows'.
The villification of any authentic left-leaning critical voices has been quite the phenomenon to witness. I was apalled by the treatment Ulrike Guerot received on Markus Lanz's show last year when speaking about Ukraine (on German television, a public broadcaster, ZDF):
https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/politik-gesellschaft/ulrike-guerot-bei-markus-lanz-wer-fuer-den-frieden-ist-ist-jetzt-auch-feind-li.233689
More recently, I was dismayed by the criticism of Sara Wagenknechts and peace proposal exemplarised in a debate between Sedar Somoncu and Florian Schroeder (on German radio, a public broadcaster, RadioEins):
https://twitter.com/theageofspin/status/1625905939919384607?s=20
And now Epimetheus has highlighted this unsavoury criticism of Jürgen Habermas in Die Zeit (a German weekly newspaper, throughly mainstream and representative of the left-liberal educated classes).
What can I say, I agree with Epimetheus. It's not looking good.
For me, McCarthyist blacklisting, Stasi surveillance, NS propaganda, etc. were once all exotic features of foreign historical political periods. My own adulthood has coincided with 9-11 and the rollback of constitutional rights in the USA, the lies of Weapons of Mass Destruction, pre-emptive strikes by NATO allies, the revelations from Eric Snowdon, the erosion of national sovereignty in Europe, the financial crisis and the public bailouts of private capital, the suspension of civil rights during the pandemic, and so on...
I've seen the treatment Ulrike Guerot receives. Or Sahra Wagenknecht, for that matter.
While my own standing among German-speaking media doesn't reach quite that level of notoriety, I've similarly been called names and the like for speaking up.
There's a choice everyone gets to make.
I thank you deeply for continuing to share with us all. I feel it’s imperative to me, and us all, to at least try to see/understand what is going on in the wider contexts (and not just the countries I can access). Without your brave voice much of mainland Europe would be a blank hole for me. Tough topics and pieces for sure... therefore even more needed and more gratitude for the work you do! I too have made my choice.
Thank you for your appreciation.
This Substack started out as a form of 'auto-therapy', but by now…well, how things have changed.
One must, I'd argue, gaze into the abyss that is one's soul, inner self, humanity, call it what you wish, the point is: we're all capable of good and bad. It's not that there aren't genuinely bad and evil individuals, but the struggle takes part in each and every individual.
Blaming someone else is easy. Always. Introspection and the recognition of one's own flaws is hard.
Stay strong. Together.
Your article is really weighing heavy on my heart. Not the greatest of feelings, but thank you nonetheless.
I have since decided to go see Schwarzer (who I always hated) and Wagenknecht on Saturday and I am trying to convince as many people as I can to go.
Fabian (if I may), I feel the same way. It pains me.
I also never thought that there'd come the day when I'm on the same side as Alice Schwarzer, yet, I'd argue that stranger things have happened.
I'm not in Germany, so I cannot join you on Saturday, sadly, but I shall be with you and the other 'peaceniks' in spirit.
I've also written a German version of the above, which you may find here:
https://tkp.at/2023/02/23/cancelling-habermas-eine-posse-zur-vergangenheitsbewaeltigung/
Stay strong!
Of course you may. :)
Thank you, this is much better suited for being shared with some of my German peers - the few of them that I have left anyway.
Same here, as far as the 'the few who remain' part is concerned.
Please let me know via email if you'd like to publish German versions of your Substack material on VAERS over at tkp, I'd be happy to facilitate this.
Thank you for this offer.
I have a long list of articles planned and this indeed sounds like a good addition to that list, if you catch my drift. ;)
I have been meaning to write an English article with an introduction to my website (pervaers.com) for substack as well, but I am just not getting around to it.
I do catch your drift, no worries. As a husband, father, and fully employed academic, I also find that 24 hours is, at times, a bit too little.
When you're ready, please drop me a line at: diefackel2punkt0@protonmail.com
I think Neuengamme also had 2G rules. I was going to visit with my daughter. Maybe I was just too demoralized to even check at the time, but I vaguely remember reading it.
Oh my, I wouldn't be surprised by that; after all, Austria also contemplated 2G at the workplace…(I'll write about that in more detail tomorrow), but--I'd add that, once one has made his or her choice, life becomes 'better' again: after all, there's plenty of reasons to speak up.
Stay strong!
This has become a moral imperative. We can only hope to break this deafening silence. I am trying to keep my expectations towards life at a minimum until then.
Thank you for your work!
Every time I head such references to Kant, I'm delighted. (Most of the students I teach here have no idea about him or the Enlightenment in general, a deficiency most prominently on display on the political science graduate students I teach each autumn…)
Thanks for this post. It must of cost a great deal of mental anguish.
It is extremely disturbing and disheartening to watch the Germans succumb once again to groupthink and blind war-mongering, despite DECADES of so-called "Aufarbeitung".