"Peaceful EU"

The 2012 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the European Union (EU) "for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe". In other words, for not killing each other for six decades. What an achievement of civilization! European countries successfully managed to export war to other countries and keep their home clean of massacres. This has got to be celebrated! Almost a third (31%) of the world's weapon exports between 2004 and 2008 belonged to the EU: Germany (10%), France (8%), United Kingdom (4%), Netherlands (3%), Spain (2%), Italy (2%) and Schweden (2%), according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). In its comment on the award, the institute consequently noted:

‘To be relevant for its citizens and to become a significant global player, the European Union must achieve peace and prosperity abroad as well as at home.’

In other words, the award is disregarding the EU's involvement in recent NATO wars and its often slavish following of the USA's hegemonic, aggressive, failed foreign politics. Let's not forget that among Bush's "coalition of the willing" (nations to invade Iraq) there were several EU countries (see Bush's White House Press Release, March 27, 2003). SIPRI's hint at "prosperity abroad" is also worth noting. Wasn't the EU and its citizens an essential part of the oppressive systems ruling in Tunisia, Egypt and Lybia until the "Arab Spring"? (See e.g. Smart Villages and the City of the Dead).

Moreover, with similar arguments as given below, one could justify that the US warlords deserve the Nobel Peace Prize much more than the EU: there was no war on American soil since the American Civil War, 1861. (I don't count the conflicts concerning Hawai or Alaska because these US-controlled territories became official US-states only after these conflicts).

Wouldn't it be time to think of awarding people or organizations doing a real essential job in preventing or avoiding war? Isn't the international arms trade one of the most serious threats to peace? Isn't the uncontrolled and unpunished warmongering (of mass-media) one of the most serious threats to peace as well? Why aren't people and organisations awarded which successfully fight against international arms trade and warmongering? Because there are none?

Nobel Peace Prize Committee Press Release

"The Nobel Peace Prize for 2012

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2012 is to be awarded to the European Union (EU). The union and its forerunners have for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe.

In the inter-war years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee made several awards to persons who were seeking reconciliation between Germany and France. Since 1945, that reconciliation has become a reality. The dreadful suffering in World War II demonstrated the need for a new Europe. Over a seventy-year period, Germany and France had fought three wars. Today war between Germany and France is unthinkable. This shows how, through well-aimed efforts and by building up mutual confidence, historical enemies can become close partners.

In the 1980s, Greece, Spain and Portugal joined the EU. The introduction of democracy was a condition for their membership. The fall of the Berlin Wall made EU membership possible for several Central and Eastern European countries, thereby opening a new era in European history. The division between East and West has to a large extent been brought to an end; democracy has been strengthened; many ethnically-based national conflicts have been settled.

The admission of Croatia as a member next year, the opening of membership negotiations with Montenegro, and the granting of candidate status to Serbia all strengthen the process of reconciliation in the Balkans. In the past decade, the possibility of EU membership for Turkey has also advanced democracy and human rights in that country.

The EU is currently undergoing grave economic difficulties and considerable social unrest. The Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to focus on what it sees as the EU's most important result: the successful struggle for peace and reconciliation and for democracy and human rights. The stabilizing part played by the EU has helped to transform most of Europe from a continent of war to a continent of peace.

The work of the EU represents "fraternity between nations", and amounts to a form of the "peace congresses" to which Alfred Nobel refers as criteria for the Peace Prize in his 1895 will.

Oslo, 12 October 2012"

The Politically Most Dangerous Verses of the Christian Bible (New Testament)

Romans 13:1-7
"(1) Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.

(2) Therefore, whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

(3) For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval;

(4) for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer.

(5) Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but because of conscience. (6) For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. 

(7) Pay to all what is due them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due."

Throughout history, it is first and foremost this authoritarian pamphlet in St. Paul's letters to the Romans that justified the organized Christian religion to try to align with any regime regardless of how stupid, cruel or inhumane. But don't get fooled by the term 'organized religion'. The basis for this unconditional authoritarian thinking is written down explicitly in the "holy text" and holds for the ordinary believer as well. It cannot just be interpreted away, especially if you think of the apostles being "inspired by the holy spirit" and therefore speaking the truth, and their Messiah's somewhat indifferent answer to the question if you ought to pay taxes to the oppressive occupier of your country: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." It is thus open to every fundamentalist to take these verses literally as moral justification for convincing the people to slavishly obey any political power of the day, for this power is appointed by God. Independent of the ways various rulers come to power - let it be democratic elections or coups d'etats, Christians may not resist but ought to pay taxes and revenues, show respect and honor, and try to receive approval from the authorities (and btw, this also holds for the present US president, Mr. Obama: do everything to receive his approval, folks!).

Throughout history they tried to align, even with the most detestable rulers, and as soon as circumstances allowed, Christians tried to get in power themselves. Those rare cases when some local branches of a Christian church opposed injust governments, were brutally rebuked by higher church officials. For example, Liberation Theology during the nineteen sixties and seventies in South-America was not supported by the Vatican but finally wiped off the table by today's Pope Ratzinger in his critique "Libertatis nuntius", 1984, where he denounced proponents of the fight against (US-backed) dictatorships and the terror of land-owners as Marxists (a  typical straw man argument and killer phrase). It is eye-opening to read the document, probably the best theological justification for Romans 13:1-7 on the market: the basic argument against Liberation Theology consists in the distinction between the Messiah's promise of liberation from "original sin" on the one hand, and the liberation from "servitude of an earthly and temporal kind" on the other hand. Consequently, the enslaved and tortured should first try to convert the rulers to obey Christian laws, then the rest (just and humane government) would follow automatically. Ratzinger didn't even mention the killed priests, he just joined the people who ordered these assassinations by defaming the priests as Marxists. (E.g. Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador had been killed on 24 March 1980 while celebrating Mass, and he could have hardly been viewed as Marxist.)

On the other hand, St. Paul's verses have frequently motivated regimes to align with Christian churches, and still they are doing. In the USA, every presidential candidate must seek support of Christian organisations in order to be electable, and in Putin's Russia the growing influence of the Orthodox Church is frightening. Russian political commentators often justify this move by the old Machiavellian view of religion: stupid but useful for rulers. Romans 13:1-7 provides the basis for such a mindset. During the Tsarist Era, the Russian Orthodox church enjoyed its privileges granted by the Russian aristocratic rulers. This ended abruptly after the rise of the Bolsheviks and Stalin. But as soon as Stalin was under attack by Nazi Germany, the dictator invited the Orthodox back to bed and table and the priests accepted immediately. The involvement of the Vatican with Hitler's regime is widely known. The Roman Catholic church was one of those who helped Hitler to come into power. In fact, the Reichskonkordat (1933) was one of Hitler's first success stories, "ensuring that the catholics from now on will unreservedly support the Nazi state". Hardly anybody knows that this treaty of shame is still in force today! According to Romans 13:1-7 the authority of Hitler and Stalin was from God and God established their terror regimes (and all the others). They were not a terror for good conduct, but to bad. If you have done good, you have received their approval. Don't you know that Hitler, Stalin, Cesar, Mao, Franco, Pinochet, Idi Amin, Ceausescu, ... they were all good for you? Because they were servants of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoers ... Well, if this is not highly dangerous nonsense, what else is?

Guess Which City, Which Country?

Click on pictures to enlarge:

city center around a channel I

city center around a channel II

fountain, city center

natural river near city center

various crowded squares 

a restaurant

they nicknamed it "Marcus Square"

view from the arcades of "Marcus Square"

office buildings

long boulevard across the City

bus stop somewehre outskirts of town

Any idea which city? At least which country? Scroll down to see solution:

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

The city's name is Yóshkar-Óla (Йошкар-Óла), capital of the Republic Mári-El (Республика Марий Эл), Russian Federation, around 800 km east of Moscow. Surprised?

The indigenous population of this republic is called the Mari People (марийцы), currently about 44% of the total population, not much less than ethnic Russians (49%). Besides Russian, the uralic or finno-ugric Mari language is an official language of the Republic (e.g. road and traffic signs as well as captions on official buildings are in both languages). Mari is also taught in schools. Though pressed by monotheistic religions in neighboring republics, Mari natural religion is still practiced today (see also Mari Traditional Religion).* 

The busy building activities in and around Yóshkar-Óla are due to Governor Leonid Markelov, who is said to have a passion for Brugge, Belgium. Probably without asking the people, he decided that the capital ought to be a Brugge lookalike (compare following 2 pics).

Brugge's famous market square
(Grote Markt)

Brugge: Grote Markt during
 upcoming storm

And even if the non-Russian features of the new appearance of the city sometimes border on the ridiculous (in the center there is a statue of Rainier III, Prince of Monaco together with his Grace Kelly), citizens overwhelmingly seem to appreciate what is done for their hometown, even though practically everybody seems to believe one of the construction firms in charge is owned by Irina Konstantinova Markelova, the Governor's wife. Moreover, some people say the Governor's family residence - a palace - is situated right in the middle of the city - close to the biggest orthodox church building, surrounded by the same walls and protected by the same security (I have no evidence for the statement concerning the family, so it might be only a rumor ;-)

The center is designed completely new (but with some churches built on historic ground). There is a broad boulevard through the whole city where people use to go walking, especially in the evening - really a very nice meeting point with flowers and fountains; parks are well cared for. During the last decade a series of sports facilities has been built: two ice rinks, two indoor swimming baths (one for children only),

Indoor Tennis Center

Children's Indoor Swimming Bath

one indoor tennis center, a new football stadium (though Yóshkar-Óla is only a bad third league club) and other outdoor Astroturfs, a roofed athletics stadium is being under construction. Btw, even the football stadium looks very similar to Brugge's "Jan Breydel Stadion"(!)

Ticket prices for these facilities are modest: from 18:00 to 22:00 working people may enter the indoor bath for 3 euros; the indoor tennis court though is 12 euros per hour. Recently, the city is flooded by more and more restaurants. Newly arrived MacDonald's has a hard stand in fighting the competitors arising from various domestic Russian restaurant chains; also, the number of upscale restaurants is on the rise (surprisingly, there is a wheat beer brewery owned and run by a German).

Yóshkar-Óla kindergarden I

Yóshkar-Óla kindergarden II

In addition, street cafés, museums (the Mari Museum is very recommendable), theaters, operas and unfortunately a huge number of newly built churches, ... , new Yóshkar-Óla has much more to offer than one would expect from a Russian provincial small town (inhabitants about 270 000). Formerly a typical grey Soviet city with its faceless structure, poor apartment blocks and depressing housing situation, the ongoing construction boom is striking. (If there wouldn't be still a strong demand in Russia for new living space, one could think there is a real estate bubble like in Spain or the USA not long ago). If you fly to Moscow over its surrounding area, you can see lots of swathes cut into the woods, inside with town houses and gated communities of the rising Muscovite's middle class and - of course - the palaces and mansions of the "nouveau riches" and the oligarchs. This cannot yet be seen in Yóshkar-Óla. But even there new private homes are built and are starting to change the face and the atmosphere of the city.

new middle-class home near
Malaya Kokshaga river II

new middle-class home near
Malaya Kokshaga river I

If you ask the citizens of Yóshkar-Óla how they would explain this rapid development of their city, you get mainly two different answers. The majority tends to believe that "this is just the beginning of a Russia-wide positive economic and political development". The alternative answer says "it's just another Potemkin".

Anyway, the whole region has much potential. Yóshkar-Óla is only a few miles away from the beautiful sandy river banks of the Wolga and directly connected with it via natural rivers. The city is surrounded by woods with lakes and rolling hills, perfect for mushrooms! You don't need to be a prophet to predict that the region will attract more and more tourists in the near future, domestic and international.


Some more Impressions from Yóshkar-Óla, Republic of Mari-El, Russia.

market hall

inside market hall, private vendors
 offering meat 

wedding

golden stretch limo

old soviet style theater

medieval music on the boulevard

small church on main square

relaxing in the evening

boats on the Malaya Kokshaga river,
 after sunset

fireworks in Yóshkar-Óla

colorful buildings in contrast

to old soviet architecture

a Russian bank

*In comparison, neighboring Chuvash Republic has more than 2 thirds of indigenous Chuvash people (descendants of the ancient kingdom of the semi-nomadic Bulgars until  the 13th century), the bilingual conditions are similar and the Chuvash natural religion is still active (Vattisen Yaly). In contrast, Tatarstan has around 55% Muslims and 45% Russian Orthodox (according to Wikipedia) - not much of natural religion left. 53% of the population are Tatars, 39% ethnic Russians.

Oh, How We Love Our Oriental Rulers!

"If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria.  If you want someone to disappear—never to see them again—you send them to Egypt", Robert Baer once said.

Now, the West loves brutal dictators - as long as they keep their cruelties secret and as long they play by the rules - OUR rules, or - to be more precise - the rules of big business. We loved when crazy Gaddafi  resided in a tent on Donald Trump's property in New York and was eager to supply oil, we loved when the Trabelsi Clan provided us with cheap labor slaves and hotels to serve us Western tourists on Tunesia's golden beaches; we loved the outsourcing, the money laundering and the weapon deals with the Mubarak Clan in Egypt, we loved Yemen's Saleh and offered him refuge just as we liked the Shah of Persia and Saddam, and we still love the Gulf states - especially Saudi Arabia - because we can make such a good business with them and they really manage to keep their fellow citizens down and torture in the dark. And we all know: Syria is next. Assad was good, but he couldn't keep his people effectively under control. So don't wonder why "Obama authorized covert support for Syrian rebels"! This is just the "Syrian war of lies and hypocrisy" as one of the last remaining journalists said. Don't you worry, we'll find another dictator for Syria and then we apply democracy there!

Die Last der Zivilsation II

"Um Platon zu verstehen, müssen wir uns die ganze zeitgenössische Situation vor Augen führen. Nach dem Peloponnesischen Krieg wurde die Last der Zivilisation so schwer wie nie zuvor. Die alten oligarchischen Hoffnungen waren noch immer lebendig, und die Niederlage Athens trug sogar dazu bei, sie zu ermutigen. Der Klassen-kampf dauerte weiter an. Doch der Versuch des Kritias, die Demokratie zu zerstören und das Programm des alten Oligarchen durchzuführen, war fehlgeschlagen. Nicht aus Mangel an Entschiedenheit. Der rücksichtslose Gebrauch von Gewalt hatte sich als erfolglos erwiesen, trotz günstiger Umstände in Gestalt einer mächtigen Unterstützung von seiten des siegreichen Sparta. Platon fühlte die Notwendigkeit einer völligen Rekonstruktion des Programmes. Die Dreißig waren auf dem Gebiet der Machtpolitik hauptsächlich deshalb gescheitert, weil sie den Gerechtigkeitssinn der Bürger beleidigt hatten. Ihre Niederlage war vor allem eine moralische Niederlage gewesen. Der Glauben an die große Generation hatte seine Stärke bewiesen. Die Dreißig hatten nichts Ähnliches zu bieten – sie waren moralische Nihilisten. Das Programm des alten Oligarchen, das fühlte Platon, konnte nicht belebt werden, wenn man es nicht auf einen anderen Glauben gründete, auf einen Glauben, der die alten Stammeswerte wieder herstellte und sie dem Glauben an die offene Gesellschaft entgegensetzte. Die Menschen müssen gelehrt werden, daß Gerechtigkeit Ungleichheit ist und daß der Stamm, das Kollektiv, höher steht, als das Individuum." Karl Popper [1945], Kapitel 10, Abschnitt IV

"Dieser Traum von Einheit, Schönheit, Vervollkommnung, dieser Ästhetizismus, Holismus und Kollektivismus, ist Wirkung und Symptom des verlorenen Gruppengeistes des Stammes68. Er drückt die Gefühle und Hoffnungen aller Menschen aus, die unter der Last der Zivilisation leiden, und er appelliert an diese Gefühle. (Es gehört zu dieser Last, daß wir uns der Unvollkommenheiten unseres Lebens, der persönlichen wie auch der institutionellen Unvollkommenheiten, immer mehr und immer schmerzlicher bewußt werden; daß wir vermeidbares Leiden, Verschwendung und unnötige Häßlichkeit in immer größerem Ausmaße bemerken; und daß wir zur gleichen Zeit erkennen, daß es uns nicht unmöglich ist, etwas zur Verbesserung beizutragen; daß aber solche Verbesserungen ebensoschwer zu erreichen sind, als sie wichtig sind. Diese Gewißheit vergrößert die Last der persönlichen Verantwortung: wir tragen das Kreuz dafür, daß wir menschlich sind.)" Karl Popper [1945], Kapitel 10, Abschnitt IV

"Ich nehme an, daß das, was ich die «Last der Zivilisation» nenne, dem Phänomen ähnlich ist, das Freud vorschwebte, als er Das Unbehagen in der Kultur schrieb. Toynbee spricht von einer Empfindung des Dahintreibens (A Study of History V 412 ff.), aber er beschränkt es auf «Perioden der Auflösung», während ich das, was ich meine, sehr klar bei Heraklit ausgedrückt finde (Spuren finden sich bereits bei Hesiod); – und das lange vor der Zeit, zu der sich das, was Toynbee die «hellenische Gesellschaftsordnung» nennt, «aufzulösen» beginnt. Meyer spricht vom Verschwinden der «Geburtsstände, welche jedem Menschen seine Lebensstellung, seine bürgerlichen und sozialen Rechte und Pflichten und mit dem ererbten Beruf zugleich einen sicheren Erwerb unabänderlich zuwiesen» (Geschichte des Altertums, 1. Auflage, 1901 III 542). Diese Stelle gibt eine gute Beschreibung der Spannung in der griechischen Gesellschaftsordnung des fünften vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts." Karl Popper, [1945], Fußnote 8 zu Kapitel 10.

The Strain of Civilization II

"In order to understand Plato we must visualize the whole contemporary situation. After the Peloponnesian war, the strain of civilization was felt as strongly as ever. The old oligarchic hopes were still alive, and the defeat of Athens had even tended to encourage them. The class struggle continued. Yet Critias’ attempt to destroy democracy by carrying out the programme of the Old Oligarch had failed. It had not failed through lack of determination; the most ruthless use of violence had been unsuccessful, in spite of favourable circumstances in the shape of powerful support from victorious Sparta. Plato felt that a complete reconstruction of the programme was needed. The Thirty had been beaten in the realm of power politics largely because they had offended the citizens’ sense of justice. The defeat had been largely a moral defeat. The faith of the Great Generation had proved its strength. The Thirty had nothing of this kind to offer; they were moral nihilists. The programme of the Old Oligarch, Plato felt, could not be revived without basing it upon another faith, upon a persuasion which re-affirmed the old values of tribalism, opposing them to the faith of the open society. Men must be taught that justice is inequality, and that the tribe, the collective, stands higher than the individual." Karl Popper [1945], Ch. 10, Section IV

"This dream of unity and beauty and perfection, this aestheticism and holism and collectivism, is the product as well as the symptom of the lost group spirit of tribalism. It is the expression of, and an ardent appeal to, the sentiments of those who suffer from the strain of civilization. (It is part of the strain that we are becoming more and more painfully aware of the gross imperfections in our life, of personal as well as of institutional imperfection; of avoidable suffering, of waste and of unnecessary ugliness; and at the same time of the fact that it is not impossible for us to do something about all this, but that such improvements would be just as hard to achieve as they are important. This awareness increases the strain of personal responsibility, of carrying the cross of being human.)" Karl Popper [1945], Chapter 10, Section IV

"I suppose that what I call the ‘strain of civilization’ is similar to the phenomenon which Freud had in mind when writing Civilization and its Discontents. Toynbee speaks of a Sense of Drift (A Study of History, V, 412 ff.), but he confines it to ‘ages of disintegration’, while I find my strain very clearly expressed in Heraclitus (in fact, traces can be found in Hesiod)—long before the time when, according to Toynbee, his ‘Hellenic society’ begins to ‘disintegrate’. Meyer speaks of the disappearance of ‘The status of birth, which had determined every man’s place in life, his civil and social rights and duties, together with the security of earning his living’ (Geschichte des Altertums, III, 542). This gives an apt description of the strain in Greek society of the fifth century B.C." Karl Popper, [1945], footnote 8 to Chapter 10.

The Strain of Civilization I

"The breakdown of tribalism, of the closed societies of Greece, may be traced back to the time when population growth began to make itself felt among the ruling class of landed proprietors. This meant the end of ‘organic’ tribalism. For it created social tension within the closed society of the ruling class. At first, there appeared to be something like an ‘organic’ solution of this problem, the creation of daughter cities. (The ‘organic’ character of this solution was underlined by the magical procedures followed in the sending out of colonists.) But this ritual of colonization only postponed the breakdown. It even created new danger spots wherever it led to cultural contacts; and these, in turn, created what was perhaps the worst danger to the closed society—commerce, and a new class engaged in trade and seafaring. By the sixth century B.C., this development had led to the partial dissolution of the old ways of life, and even to a series of political revolutions and reactions. And it had led not only to attempts to retain and to arrest tribalism by force, as in Sparta, but also to that great spiritual revolution, the invention of critical discussion, and, in consequence, of thought that was free from magical obsessions. At the same time we find the first symptoms of a new uneasiness. The strain of civilization was beginning to be felt.

This strain, this uneasiness, is a consequence of the breakdown of the closed society. It is still felt even in our day, especially in times of social change. It is the strain created by the effort which life in an open and partially abstract society continually demands from us—by the endeavour to be rational, to forgo at least some of our emotional social needs, to look after ourselves, and to accept responsibilities. We must, I believe, bear this strain as the price to be paid for every increase in knowledge, in reasonableness, in co-operation and in mutual help, and consequently in our chances of survival, and in the size of the population. It is the price we have to pay for being human. The strain is most closely related to the problem of the tension between the classes which is raised for the first time by the breakdown of the closed society. The closed society itself does not know this problem. At least to its ruling members, slavery, caste, and class rule are ‘natural’ in the sense of being unquestionable. But with the breakdown of the closed society, this certainty disappears, and with it all feeling of security. The tribal community (and later the ‘city’) is the place of security for the member of the tribe. Surrounded by enemies and by dangerous or even hostile magical forces, he experiences the tribal community as a child experiences his family and his home, in which he plays his definite part; a part he knows well, and plays well. The breakdown of the closed society, raising as it does the problems of class and other problems of social status, must have had the same effect upon the citizens as a serious family quarrel and the breaking up of the family home is liable to have on children. Of course, this kind of strain was felt by the privileged classes, now that they were threatened, more strongly than by those who had formerly been suppressed; but even the latter felt uneasy. They also were frightened by the breakdown of their ‘natural’ world. And though they continued to fight their struggle, they were often reluctant to exploit their victories over their class enemies who were supported by tradition, the status quo, a higher level of education, and a feeling of natural authority. In this light we must try to understand the history of Sparta, which successfully tried to arrest these developments, and of Athens, the leading democracy." Karl Popper [1945], Chapter 10, Section II

Die Last der Zivilisation I

"Der Zusammenbruch der Stammesformen, der geschlossenen Gesellschaftsordnungen Griechenlands, läßt sich bis auf die Zeit zurückverfolgen, in der das Wachstum der Bevölkerung sich in der herrschenden Klasse der Grundbesitzer fühlbar machte. Dies bedeutete das Ende der «organischen» Gebundenheit an den Stamm. Denn damit entstanden soziale Spannungen innerhalb der geschlossenen Gesellschaft der herrschenden Klasse. Zuerst schien es eine gewissermaßen «organische» Lösung dieses Problems zu geben, nämlich durch die Gründung von Tochterstädten. (Der «organische» Charakter dieser Lösung wird durch die magischen Prozeduren unterstrichen, die man bei der Aussendung der Kolonisten einhielt.) Aber dieses Ritual der Kolonisation konnte den Zusammenbruch nur hinausschieben. Es schuf sogar neue Gefahrenzonen, überall dort, wo es zur Berührung mit fremden Kulturen führte. Denn dort entstand die vielleicht größte Gefahr für die geschlossene Gesellschaft, der Handel, sowie eine neue Klasse, die sich mit Handel und Schiffahrt beschäftigte. Im sechsten Jahrhundert v. Chr. hatte diese Entwicklung zur teilweisen Auflösung der alten Lebensformen und sogar zu einer Reihe politischer Revolutionen und Reaktionen geführt. Und sie hatte nicht nur, wie in Sparta, zu Versuchen Anlaß gegeben, die alte Stammesform zu retten und die begonnene Entwicklung gewaltsam zum Stillstand zu bringen, sondern auch zu jener großen geistigen Revolution, zur Erfindung der kritischen Diskussion und damit zu einem Denken, das frei war von der Starrheit magischer Zwangsvorstellungen. Zur gleichen Zeit finden wir die ersten Symptome eines neuen Unbehagens. Die Last der Anforderungen der Zivilisation begann fühlbar zu werden. 

Diese Last, dieses Unbehagen, ist eine Folge des Zusammenbruchs der geschlossenen Gesellschaftsordnung. Sie wird auch heute noch gefühlt (und in Deutschland gerne mit dem Hegelianisch-sentimentalen Namen «Selbstentfremdung des Menschen» belegt). Es ist eine Last, die von allen getragen werden muß, die in einer offenen und teilweise abstrakten Gesellschaft leben und die sich bemühen müssen, vernünftig zu handeln, zumindest einige ihrer emotionalen und natürlichen sozialen Bedürfnisse unbefriedigt zu lassen und für sich und für andere verantwortlich zu sein. Wir müssen, glaube ich, die Last auf uns nehmen, als einen Preis, den wir zahlen müssen für jede neue Erkenntnis, für jeden weiteren Schritt zur Vernunft, zur Zusammenarbeit, zur gegenseitigen Hilfe; für jede Verlängerung des durchschnittlichen Lebensalters; und für jeden Bevölkerungszuwachs. Es ist der Preis für die Humanität." Karl Popper [1945], Kapitel 10, Abschnitt 2

Der Wunsch auserwählt zu sein

"Die Lehren vom auserwählten Volk, der auserwählten Rasse und der auserwählten Klasse haben folgendes gemeinsam: Sie alle entstanden als Reaktion gegen irgendeine Unterdrückung und gewannen auf diese Weise an Bedeutung. Die Lehre vom auserwählten Volk erhielt ihre Bedeutung zur Zeit der Gründung der jüdischen Kirche, d. h. während der Babylonischen Gefangenschaft; Graf Gobineaus Theorie von der arischen Herrenrasse war eine Reaktion des aristokratischen Emigranten auf die Behauptung, die Französische Revolution habe die teutonischen Herren mit Erfolg vertrieben. Marx’ Prophezeiung vom Sieg des Proletariats ist die Antwort auf eine der düstersten Perioden der Unterdrückung und Ausbeutung in der modernen Geschichte." Karl Popper [1945] Footnote 3 to Chapter 1

"Die Lehre vom auserwählten Volk ist das Produkt einer Gesellschaft, die in Stämmen organisiert ist. Der Tribalismus, das heißt das Hervorheben der außerordentlichen Bedeutung des Stammes, ohne den das Individuum nicht die geringste Bedeutung besitzt, ist ein Element, das wir in vielen Formen historizistischer Theorien finden werden. [...] Eine andere Seite der Lehre vom auserwählten Volk ist, daß das, was als das Ziel der Geschichte hingestellt wird, in der fernsten Zukunft liegt. Dieses Ziel läßt sich zwar mit einer gewissen Bestimmtheit beschreiben. Dennoch haben wir einen langen Weg zurückzulegen, um es zu erreichen. Und dieser Weg ist nicht nur lang, sondern verschlungen, er führt aufwärts, abwärts, nach rechts und nach links. Es ist daher möglich, jedes erdenkliche historische Ereignis in diesem Deutungsschema unterzubringen: Keine erdenkliche Erfahrung kann das Schema widerlegen. Denen aber, die an es glauben, verleiht es Sicherheit in bezug auf den schließlichen Ausgang der menschlichen Geschichte." Karl Popper [1945] Ch.1

"Zu Beginn stand das Christentum wie auch die kynische Bewegung im Gegensatz zum gelehrten platonisierenden Idealismus und Intellektualismus der schreibenden Autoren, der "Schriftgelehrten". ("Du hast diese Dinge vor den Weisen und Klugen verborgen und sie den Kindern geoffenbart.") Ich zweifle nicht, dass es teilweise ein Protest war gegen eine Bewegung, die man als den jüdischen Platonismus im weiteren Sinn beschreiben könnte, ein Protest gegen die abstrakte Verehrung Gottes und seines Worts. Und es war ganz gewiß ein Protest gegen die jüdische Stammesgesellschaft, gegen ihre starren und leeren Stammestabus und gegen die Exklusivität des jüdischen Stammes, die sich zum Beispiel in der Lehre vom auserwählten Volk äußerte, das heißt in einer Interpretation der Gottheit als Stammesgott. Es scheint, daß ein derartiges Betonen der Stammesgesetze und der Einheit des Stammes nicht so sehr eine primitive Stammesgesellschaft charakterisiert, sondern daß es vielmehr ein verzweifelter Versuch ist, die alten Formen des Stammeslebens wiederherzustellen und festzuhalten. Und im Fall des Judentums scheint es eine Reaktion gegen die Auswirkungen der babylonischen Eroberungen auf das jüdische Stammesleben gewesen zu sein. Aber Seite an Seite mit dieser Bewegung zu größerer Starrheit finden wir eine andere Bewegung, die gleichzeitig entstanden sein dürfte und die humanitäre Ideen produzierte, Ideen, welche der Reaktion der großen Generation auf die Auflösung des griechischen Stammeslebens sehr ähnlich waren. Dieser Prozeß scheint sich wiederholt zu haben, als die jüdische Unabhängigkeit schließlich von Rom zerstört wurde. Das führte zu einem neuen und tieferen Schisma zwischen den beiden möglichen Lösungen, der Rückkehr zum Stamm, dargestellt vom orthodoxen Judentum, und der humanitären Einstellung der neuen Sekte der Christen, die Barbaren (oder Heiden) und auch Sklaven umfaßte. Aus der Apostelgeschichte können wir ersehen, wie ernsthaft diese Probleme waren, das soziale Problem und das nationale Problem; und dasselbe läßt sich aus der Entwicklung des Judentums ablesen; denn die Konservativen reagierten auf genau dieselbe Situation mit einem zweiten Versuch, ihre Stammeslebensformen festzuhalten und zu versteinern, indem sie sich an ihre «Gesetze» klammerten mit einer Zähigkeit, die den Beifall Platons gewonnen haben würde. Es läßt sich kaum bezweifeln, daß diese Entwicklung, wie auch die Entwicklung der Ideen Platons, durch einen starken Widerstand gegen das neue Kredo der offenen Gesellschaft, in diesem Fall gegen das Christentum, inspiriert war." Karl Popper [1945] Ch.11, Section III.

The Wish to be Chosen

"There is no doubt that the doctrine of the chosen people grew out of the tribal form of social life. Tribalism, i.e. the emphasis on the supreme importance of the tribe without which the individual is nothing at all, is an element which we shall find in many forms of historicist theories. [...] Another aspect of the doctrine of the chosen people is the remoteness of what it proffers as the end of history. For although it may describe this end with some degree of definiteness, we have to go a long way before we reach it. And the way is not only long, but winding, leading up and down, right and left. Accordingly, it will be possible to bring every conceivable historical event well within the scheme of the interpretation. No conceivable experience can refute it. But to those who believe in it, it gives certainty regarding the ultimate outcome of human history." Karl Popper [1945] Ch.1

"One of the features which the doctrines of the chosen people, the chosen race, and the chosen class have in common is that they originated, and became important, as reactions against some kind of oppression. The doctrine of the chosen people became important at the time of the foundation of the Jewish church, i.e. during the the Babylonian captivity; Count Gobineau’s theory of the Aryan master race was a reaction of the aristocratic emigrant to the claim that the French Revolution had successfully expelled the Teutonic masters. Marx’s prophecy of the victory of the proletariat is his reply to one of the most sinister periods of oppression and exploitation in modern history." Karl Popper [1945] Footnote 3 to Chapter 1

"In its beginning, Christianity, like the Cynic movement, was opposed to the highbrow Platonizing Idealism and intellectualism of the ‘scribes’, the learned men. (‘Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and hast revealed them unto the babes.’) I do not doubt that it was, in part, a protest against what may be described as Jewish Platonism in the wider sense, the abstract worship of God and His Word. And it was certainly a protest against Jewish tribalism, against its rigid and empty tribal taboos, and against its tribal exclusiveness which expressed itself, for example, in the doctrine of the chosen people, i.e. in an interpretation of the deity as a tribal god. Such an emphasis upon tribal laws and tribal unity appears to be characteristic not so much of a primitive tribal society as of a desperate attempt to restore and arrest the old forms of tribal life; and in the case of Jewry, it seems to have originated as a reaction to the impact of the Babylonian conquest on Jewish tribal life. But side by side with this movement towards greater rigidity we find another movement which apparently originated at the same time, and which produced humanitarian ideas that resembled the response of the Great Generation to the dissolution of Greek tribalism. This process, it appears, repeated itself when Jewish independence was ultimately destroyed by Rome. It led to a new and deeper schism between these two possible solutions, the return to the tribe, as represented by orthodox Jewry, and the humanitarianism of the new sect of Christians, which embraced barbarians (or gentiles) as well as slaves. We can see from the Acts how urgent these problems were, the social problem as well as the national problem. And we can see this from the development of Jewry as well; for its conservative part reacted to the same challenge by another movement towards arresting and petrifying their tribal form of life, and by clinging to their ‘laws’ with a tenacity which would have won the approval of Plato. It can hardly be doubted that this development was, like that of Plato’s ideas, inspired by a strong antagonism to the new creed of the open society; in this case, of Christianity." Karl Popper [1945] VOl. 2, Ch.1, Section III.

Historicism

"It is widely believed that a truly scientific or philosophical attitude towards politics, and a deeper understanding of social life in general, must be based upon a contemplation and interpretation of human history. While the ordinary man takes the setting of his life and the importance of his personal experiences and petty struggles for granted, it is said that the social scientist or philosopher has to survey things from a higher plane. He sees the individual as a pawn, as a somewhat insignificant instrument in the general development of mankind. And he finds that the really important actors on the Stage of History are either the Great Nations and their Great Leaders, or perhaps the Great Classes, or the Great Ideas. However this may be, he will try to understand the meaning of the play which is performed on the Historical Stage; he will try to understand the laws of historical development. If he succeeds in this, he will, of course, be able to predict future developments. He might then put politics upon a solid basis, and give us practical advice by telling us which political actions are likely to succeed or likely to fail. This is a brief description of an attitude which I call historicism. It is an old idea, or rather, a loosely connected set of ideas which have become, unfortunately, so much a part of our spiritual atmosphere that they are usually taken for granted, and hardly ever questioned. [..] But if historicism is a faulty method that produces worthless results, then it may be useful to see how it originated, and how it succeeded in entrenching itself so successfully. An historical sketch undertaken with this aim can, at the same time, serve to analyse the variety of ideas which have gradually accumulated around the central historicist doctrine—the doctrine that history is controlled by specific historical or evolutionary laws whose discovery would enable us to prophesy the destiny of man. Historicism, which I have so far characterized only in a rather abstract way, can be well illustrated by one of the simplest and oldest of its forms, the doctrine of the chosen people. This doctrine is one of the attempts to make history understandable by a theistic interpretation, i.e. by recognizing God as the author of the play performed on the Historical Stage. The theory of the chosen people, more specifically, assumes that God has chosen one people to function as the selected instrument of His will, and that this people will inherit the earth. In this doctrine, the law of historical development is laid down by the Will of God. This is the specific difference which distinguishes the theistic form from other forms of historicism. A naturalistic historicism, for instance, might treat the developmental law as a law of nature; a spiritual historicism would treat it as a law of spiritual development; an economic historicism, again, as a law of economic development. Theistic historicism shares with these other forms the doctrine that there are specific historical laws which can be discovered, and upon which predictions regarding the future of mankind can be based." Karl Popper [1945], Chapter 1: Historicism And The Myth Of Destiny

Merkel ist schon Vergangenheit

Die deutsche Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel bezeichnete laut Presseberichten die Ukraine als Diktatur. Sie verlautbarte am Donnerstag in einer Regierungserklärung vor dem deutschen Bundestag:

"Es muss unbedingt verhindert werden, dass das ukrainische Regime die Fußball-EM zur Aufwertung ihrer Diktatur nutzt."

Sie erwähnte in diesem Zusammenhang auch Weißrussland als Dikatatur.

Nun spitzt sich die Schmierenkomödie um die ukrainische Oligarchin Yulia Timoschenko doch noch so zu, daß ernste Konsequenzen zu erwarten sind. Merkel lehnt sich mit dieser Äußerung so weit aus dem Fenster, wie es Politiker eigentlich nur tun, wenn sie bereits wissen, daß sie in Kürze abdanken werden.

In der internationalen Diplomatie gilt es als außergewöhnlicher Affront einen Staat, der sich demokratisch nennt (auch wenn er es nur auf dem Papier ist), in dieser Weise zu "beleidigen". Es herrscht auf dem rutschigen Parkett der internationalen Diplomatie nämlich das Prinzip der Reziprozität (ein kulturgeschichtliches Erbe aus der Zeit der nomadisierenden Hirtenvölker). Die Ukraine muß daher der deutschen Kanzlerin antworten. Andererseits kann Frau Merkel jetzt (aber auch schon aufgrund ihrer vorhergehenden Äußerungen gegen die Ukraine) für ihre restliche Amtszeit festgenagelt werden auf ihrer unreflektierten Dichotomie zwischen demokratischen und undemokratischen Regierungen bzw. ihrer eigenen politischen Praxis, die in einem unübersehbaren Widerspruch dazu steht.

Was die Antwort der ukrainischen Oligarchie betrifft, so kann darüber zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt nur spekuliert werden. Merkel etwa als persona non grata vorderhand auszuladen dürfte sich als Boomerang herausstellen, wenn man den Zusammenhalt der restlichen EU-Staaten voraussetzt. Ob die Fußball-EM deswegen abgesagt werden müßte, ist wieder eine andere Frage. Das ukrainische Regime steht hier vor einer verzwickten Aufgabe. Möglicherweise verlegt sie sich auf's Aussitzen und Ausschweigen (und damit auf's Suspendieren der diplomatischen Reziprozität). Vielleicht sind sich die Ukrainer auch bewußt, daß sie gar nicht viel zu unternehmen brauchen, da sich Merkel (zusammen mit einigen EU-Kollegen) zu sehr selbst in die Enge getrieben hat. 

Daß sich Merkel hier tatsächlich sehr weit aus dem Fenster lehnt, wird (wie üblich) nur in den Foren von Online Zeitungen und in Blogs besprochen, nicht aber im Infotainment selbst (oder kaum). Die unangenehmen aber berechtigten Fragen, die dort - im Schatten des Mainstreams - gestellt wurden, werden auch in Zukunft schwer auf der Kanzlerin lasten. Immerhin erwartet man von rationalen Menschen eine konsequente Handlungsweise.

- Frau Merkel, werden Sie auch anläßlich der Winterspiele 2014 in Sotchi Russland als Diktatur bezeichnen? Auch dort werden Oppositionspolitiker inhaftiert, von der Gewaltherrschaft des Dr. Kadyrov in Tschetschenien einmal ganz abgesehen.

- Frau Merkel, welchen Unterschied sehen Sie zwischen den Inhaftierungen des Oligarchen Chordorkowski in Rußland und der Oligarchin Timoschenko in der Ukraine?

- Frau Merkel, warum lassen Sie es zu, daß private deutsche Unternehmen wie auch der deutsche Staat selbst seit Jahren gewinnbringende Geschäfte mit den ukrainischen Diktatoren treiben und dadurch deren Diktatur stützen, die Sie anprangern?

- Dieselbe Frage für: China, Russland, Weißrussland, Türkei, die Golf-Staaten, ...

- Frau Merkel, haben Sie Ihrem Landsmann Herrn Vettel für seinen Sieg im diktatorischen Emirat von Bahrain gratuliert?

- Frau Merkel, welcher gravierende Unterschied besteht für Sie in der "politisch motivierten" Verfolgung oppositioneller Politker und einfacher Bürger?

- Frau Merkel, mit wie vielen "Diktatoren" (oder anderen Gewaltherrschern) haben Sie sich im Auftrag der Bundesrepublik schon getroffen und warum lehnen Sie es dagegen ab sich mit den Oligarchen der Ukraine zu treffen? (Erst im Februar haben Sie die Herren Hu Jintao, Wu Bangguo und Wen Jiabao in China besucht, welche tibetische und andere Oppositionelle nicht besser behandeln, als die Ukrainer die ihrigen. Warum?)

- Frau Merkel, man hat zurecht auf die - möglicherweise haftbedingten - Verletzungen von Frau Timoschenko öffentlich hingewiesen. Wie stehen Sie dagegen zu Guantanamo? Warum besuchen Sie und unterstützen Regierungen wie die USA, welche foltern lassen, wollen aber nicht in die Ukraine reisen? Haben Sie sich dafür eingesetzt, daß die "Experten" der Berliner Charité die Häftlinge im Foltergefängnis von Guantanamo besuchen dürfen?

- Frau Merkel, die Oligarchin Timoschenko ist in den Hungerstreik getreten (den sie inzwischen auch schon wieder beendet hat). Zur selben Zeit befinden sich etwa 1600 palästinensische Gefangene in Israel im Hungerstreik für menschlichere Haftbedinungen. Werden Sie auch diese Oppositionellen unterstützen?

- Frau Merkel, was wissen Sie über Yulia Timoschenko? Wie ist sie zu ihrem Reichtum gekommen? Wieviel muß ein Ukrainer auf den Tisch legen, um Parlamentsmitglied innerhalb Timoschenkos Partei "Blok Juliji Tymoschenko" zu werden? Was hat sie als Ministerpräsidentin der Ukraine erreicht?

- Frau Merkel, Sie haben die Entscheidung der UEFA für eine Austragung der Fußball-EM 2012 in Polen/Ukraine gutgeheißen, jetzt aber drohen Sie damit die EM zu boykottieren. Warum? Was hat sich seit der Vergabe 2007 in der Ukraine wesentlich geändert? Aufgrund welcher "Hoffnungen" genau, hätte diese Vergabe die Ukraine "näher an den Westen" bringen sollen? Und was haben Boykotte von sportlichen Veranstaltungen überhaupt bis jetzt gebracht?

Fragen über Fragen. Gäbe es eine funktionierende Presse, die Kanzlerin, sowie einige weitere deutsche Politgrößen und die gesamte EU-Kommission wären schon längst in einer offenen Diskussion festgenagelt und argumentativ zerlegt worden. Heuchelei und Doppelmoral im Höchstmaß hat nichts anderes verdient als bloßgestellt zu werden.

Das gemischte Doppel "Merkozy" - die deutsch-französische Hegemonie innerhalb Europas - gehört der Vergangenheit an. Sarkozy ist letztes Wochenende abgewählt worden. Merkel wird spätestens dann zurücktreten müssen, wenn Griechenland vollends im Chaos versinkt - wenn sich zeigt, daß ihre "Bankenrettungsschirme" nichts anderes waren als eine monströse Umverteilung von Steuergeld. Und nur Politiker, die schon wissen (oder wenigstens ahnen) daß sie auf unverantwortliche Weise versagt haben, geben so leichtfertig Heuchelei und Doppelmoral von sich, an die man sie in der Zukunft festnageln kann, einfach deswegen, weil es diese Zukunft für sie nicht mehr gibt. 

update 2012-05-24
Köstlich: Timoschenko hält den "politischen Boykott der Fußball-Europameisterschaft für eine "schlechte Idee". Sie bitte darum, von derartigen Konsequenzen abzusehen". Die Meldung wird in der Öffentlichkeit kaum wahrgenommen. Kommentare der deutschen Kanzlerin und der EU-Kommission dazu sind nicht bekannt geworden.

Anläßlich der sich jährlich wiederholenden Peinlichkeit des Europäischen Song Contests, der kommenden Samstag in Aserbeidschan stattfinden wird und der Amnesty International Berichte über die Menschrechtslage in dieser Ex-Sowjetrepublik, liegt natürlich die Frage nahe, warum Merkel nicht auch dieses Land eine Diktatur nennt. Ob sich Vertreter der EU-Kommission bei dieser Verherrlichung des schlechten Geschmacks blicken lassen werden - man wird es sehen. Fragen zu einem Vergleich mit der politischen Situation in der Ukraine würden ihnen ohnehin nicht gestellt werden. 

update 2012-06-08 (Beginn der Fussball EM in Ukraine/Polen)
Empörungsmeister Deutschland: "Machthaber Janukowitsch hat die Affäre einfach ausgesessen. Peinlich, auch für Deutschland".

If We Don't Get Big Money Out of Politics ...

"If we don't get Big Money out of Politics, everything else what we want to do is hopeless" (Robert Reich, blogger, Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997, former member of President-elect Obama's economic transition advisory board, chairman of Common Cause, ...)

video --> Former Labor Sec. Robert Reich on Clinton's Errors of Crippling Welfare to Repealing Glass Steagall

More on Surveillance: U.S. Citizens Hesitate To Report Suspicious (Terrorist) Activity

News on Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's notorious “See Something, Say Something” campaign: Americans seem to feel some reluctance towards denouncing their fellow citizens, a FEMA survey found out (it is not said how many overall, just the different types of hesitation are mentioned).

For the FEMA .pdf document, click on the following headline:
Improving the Public’s Awareness and Reporting of Suspicious Activity: Key Research Findings from Literature Review, Household Survey, Focus Groups and Interviews

A summary of and comments to the survey can be found at the Center for Investigative Reporting:
Citizens fear reporting 'suspicious activity' will hurt the innocent

An infamous video (funded by the Department of Homeland Security) was shown in 2009 "at the Center for Empowered Living & Learning (CELL), an institution dedicated to addressing the global threat of terrorism, with a museum facility (called Anyone, Anytime, Anywhere: Understanding the Threat) in Denver. The facility includes exhibits on the history of terrorism and its prevention."

But even in Nazi-Germany the population didn't really jump on the Gestapo's denouncing bandwagon: contrary to myth, the willingness of Germans to denounce their fellow citizens was rather not "overwhelming", as recent historical investigations show. (see Denunziation im Dritten Reich - Die Bedeutung von Systemunterstützung und Gelegenheitsstrukturen).

Reason Underfunded

Just a few days ago:

17 April 2012: Global Day of Action on Military Spending

Why is it that this day has been totally ignored by the mainstream media around the globe? Type into some internet search engine "Global Day of Action on Military Spending" and you won't find any major news media platform mentioning this UN "action day". If there happened to be an "action", hardly anyone took notice, except some peace organizations and NGOs. Is it so unappealing that Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Ban Ki-moon greeted the day by saying

“The world is over-armed and peace is underfunded” 

Is it that unimportant, boring or irrelevant when the UNODA (United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs) announced the following:

"Global military spending continues to grow. According to the data provided by 66 Member States to the UN last year, in total, they spent 1.22 trillion dollars in 2010. According to the World Bank, less than 5 percent of that sum would be enough to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, lifting all people out of poverty."

Yes. This is just totally negligible for the infotainment.

Das kann doch nicht wahr sein !?

"[...] Und dann haben wir den großen Konzern von Springer, den tonangebenden Konzern in den Printmedien, und Springer ist explizit, ausgesprochen verpflichtet amerikanischen und israelischen Interessen. D.h. jeder Redakteur, jeder Mitarbeiter muß bei Einstellung eine entsprechende Erklärung unterschreiben, daß er nicht anti-amerikanisch und anti-israelisch veröffentlicht [...]" Jürgen Elsässer in einem Interview über die Deutsche Medienlandschaft

Dem Springer Verlag gehören in Deutschland etwa

Bild, Bild am Sonntag, Die Welt, Welt Kompakt, Euro am Sonntag, Welt am Sonntag,

Hamburger Abendblatt, Berliner Morgenpost, B.Z., B.Z. am Sonntag,

Audio Video Foto Bild, Auto Bild, Bild der Frau, Bildwoche, Computer Bild, Computer Bild Spiele, 

Euro, Fonds&Co., Frau von Heute, Funk Uhr, Hörzu, Jolie, Mädchen, Markt und Mittelstand, 

Metal Hammer, Musikexpress, Popcorn, Rolling Stone, Sport Bild, Starflash, TV Digital, TV GUIDE, 

TVneu, Yam!, ...

Gibt es irgendwelche glaubhaften Bestätigungen für Elsässers Behauptung?