Absurd, alar­ming, scan­da­lous: Anti­fa­scist Bern­hard Kle­venz comm­ents on his con­vic­tion for inci­te­ment of the people

Lese­zeit17 min

Mag­Ma publishes here the state­ment of com­ra­de Bern­hard Kle­venz in the face of a deep­ly absurd, scan­da­lous and alar­ming ver­dict. The court refu­sed to allow him to pre­sent the fol­lo­wing state­ment. The­r­e­fo­re, and in view of the con­se­quen­ces for all upright anti-fascists, the comrade’s state­ment is made available to the public here. Whoe­ver wants to sup­port Ber­hard Kle­venz is wel­co­me to cont­act him: bklevenz@t‑online.de. As a sup­ple­ment the docu­men­ta­ti­on of the tri­al as PDF is recom­men­ded, which can be found on the not yet blo­cked web­site of Bern­hard Kle­venz: https://​unde​mo​krat​.4li​ma​.de/​V​o​l​k​s​v​e​r​h​e​t​z​u​n​g​.​pdf.

State­ment on the tri­al on 01.03.22

I have been run­ning a home­page at the ori­gi­nal address www​.bkle​venz​.de on his­to­ri­cal and poli­ti­cal issues sin­ce about 1999. I pri­ma­ri­ly wri­te my own texts, which I revi­se accor­ding to my know­ledge and insights. In this con­text I also publish his­to­ri­cal docu­ments, which I scan, edit with soft­ware and even­tual­ly add name and sub­ject inde­xes to make the docu­ment searcha­ble. This included the book Mein Kampf by Adolf Hit­ler. Sin­ce this is sup­po­sed to be about Volks­ver­het­zung (trans.: crime in ger­man law, offi­ci­al­ly trans­la­ted as »inci­te­ment to hat­red« of natio­nal, racial, reli­gious group or a group defi­ned by their eth­nic ori­g­ins. Gene­ral­ly appli­ed to Holo­caust deni­al), I list my essays as far as they come into con­side­ra­ti­on for this.

Over­view of my poli­ti­cal essays:

  • »The Dili­gence of Others. A Defi­ni­ti­on of Work and Pro­duc­ti­vi­ty«. I also had this paper prin­ted and dis­tri­bu­ted it, among other places, at my for­mer place of work.
  • »At our expen­se? Wage con­ti­nua­tion in case of unem­ploy­ment or aboli­ti­on of the wel­fa­re sta­te« on the pro­blem of an uncon­di­tio­nal basic income.
  • « ›From the spark will come the fla­me‹. In memo­ry of the Dutch revo­lu­tio­na­ry Mari­nus van der Lubbe …«

For this I have pos­ted as material:

  • »The Brown Book of the Reichs­tag Fire and Hit­ler Ter­ror« (1933) by the KPD.
  • »Red Book Mari­nus van der Lub­be«, published by the »Inter­na­tio­nal Van der Lub­be Com­mit­tee« (1933).
  • In »How Many Times Will Hit­ler Be Defea­ted?« (2012) I cri­ti­ci­ze the ritua­liza­ti­on and mora­liza­ti­on of orga­ni­zed anti-fascism. (By now, this is alre­a­dy outdated).
  • »Immi­gra­ti­on as a Pro­ject of Capi­tal« (2015).
  • »Popanz.pdf« is an anno­ta­ted edi­ti­on of Mein Kampf by Adolf Hit­ler, 1943 edi­ti­on. (The exact refe­rence is neces­sa­ry becau­se Mein Kampf was con­stant­ly edi­ted bet­ween 1926 and 1943. I used the 1943 edi­ti­on becau­se it was the most acces­si­ble to me; it is the most com­mon ver­si­on on the Inter­net). The com­ple­te text of Mein Kampf is jux­ta­po­sed with state­ments by con­tem­po­r­a­ri­es about Hit­ler as a per­son and his deve­lo­p­ment into a »cha­ris­ma­tic leader.«
  • »Mas­ked Ball. Demo­cra­cy unfolds into reco­gniza­bi­li­ty: social cuts and pre­pa­ra­ti­ons for war under the pre­text of fight­ing epi­de­mics.« (2020)
Gra­phic from Bern­hard Kle­venz‹ web­site https://​unde​mo​krat​.4li​ma​.de/

In Sep­tem­ber 2020 cri­mi­nal char­ges were filed against me for inci­te­ment of the peo­p­le accor­ding to § 130 StGB. (As. 3 – 4) Howe­ver, not only becau­se of »Popanz.pdf,« but becau­se of my essay »Immi­gra­ti­on as a Pro­ject of Capi­tal.« This was said to be a racist text. A pro­se­cu­tor named Rüling unfort­u­na­te­ly found not­hing cri­mi­nal in this essay, but sug­gested to deal with »Popanz.pdf« all the same. (As. 9)

I was given a penal­ty order in the amount of 1500 Euros (50 dai­ly rates) for inci­te­ment of the peo­p­le (§ 130 StGB), against which I appea­led. Thanks to Coro­na, I was sent almost the com­ple­te inves­ti­ga­ti­on files upon request (nor­mal­ly, as a non-lawy­er, one is only allo­wed to inspect them) (As 137). I refer exclu­si­ve­ly to the­se files.

In June 2021 the tri­al took place. In old age, one tends to be peaceful and wil­ling to com­pro­mi­se; the­r­e­fo­re, and due to the spe­cial cir­cum­s­tances (mask requi­re­ment1, my hea­ring loss2, and, of cour­se, lack of tri­al expe­ri­ence), I did not object, con­tra­ry to my ori­gi­nal request, to the court’s inten­ti­on to limit the plea to the amount of the penal­ty, that is, not to object in substance.

The penal­ty was redu­ced to 750 euros for social reasons, and I was to dele­te the full text of Mein Kampf from my home­page, at least take out chap­ter 11. After careful con­side­ra­ti­on, I did not do this.3 Becau­se I did not take Popanz.pdf off my web­site, www​.bkle​venz​.de was dele­ted by Tele­kom at the behest of the court. Two days after the ver­dict was announ­ced, I filed an appeal. Sin­ce I rea­li­zed that due to my abo­ve mista­ke an appeal would not be suc­cessful, I with­drew it, uploa­ded my web­site to three other hos­ters and tur­ned mys­elf in.

I will explain the reasons.

  1. the dis­trict court Bruch­sal does not accu­se me of racism in gene­ral nor that I adopt or pro­pa­ga­te the ideo­lo­gy of Adolf Hit­ler. The inci­te­ment of the peo­p­le is said to con­sist mere­ly in the »making available« of the text, alt­hough the text has alre­a­dy been available for years by the Insti­tu­te for Con­tem­po­ra­ry Histo­ry in all detail, and can be acqui­red in the book trade or over Ama­zon for 59 euros. On the Inter­net it is available free of char­ge on Wik­is­our­ce and of cour­se (in seve­ral ver­si­ons) on archi​ve​.net (USA).
  1. The book is sup­po­sedly a sym­bol, like the swas­tika or the SS rune. Howe­ver, the real reason behind this case is pre­cis­e­ly that Popanz.pdf and of cour­se my home­page are essen­ti­al­ly dif­fe­rent from a spray pain­ting swastikas.
  1. The court adhe­res (or pre­tends to adhe­re) to the noti­on that any publi­ca­ti­on of Mein Kampf is per se alre­a­dy capa­ble of dis­tur­bing the »public peace«: They cla­im that »(The defen­dant) was also awa­re that the publi­ca­ti­on on his home­page could lead to uncon­troll­able dis­se­mi­na­ti­on.« (Judgment 3CS 520 Js 38593/20 )

No atten­ti­on at all was paid to the state­ments of the direc­tor of the Rese­arch Cen­ter for Con­tem­po­ra­ry Histo­ry Ham­burg, Axel Schildt, on the actu­al influence of Mein Kampf on cur­rent right-wing radi­cal­ism (inves­ti­ga­ti­on files As 59 – 69).

  1. The idea that someone could read Mein Kampf and then, inspi­red by the words of Adolf Hit­ler, revi­ve the NSDAP, as the court belie­ves (or pre­tends to belie­ve), pro­vo­kes laugh­ter. Not becau­se the lan­guage of the book is dif­fi­cult and »mes­sed up« (Schö­ler­mann, NDR-Info, As 66) – it is not – or becau­se neo-Nazis have dif­fi­cul­ties with coher­ent texts, but sim­ply becau­se it is his­to­ri­cal­ly settled.
  1. Mein Kampf is neither par­ti­cu­lar­ly »dis­gus­ting to read« (Axel Schildt, As 67) nor a »filt­hy book« (Judge Hin­ter­may­er with noti­ce­ab­ly stil­ted indi­gna­ti­on), but sim­ply a source. The anti-Semi­tism in Mein Kampf is no dif­fe­rent from what was com­mon in völ­kisch and natio­na­list cir­cles at the time.I had brought with me as an aid to memo­ry and illus­tra­ti­on the his­to­ri­cal-cri­ti­cal edi­ti­on of Mein Kampf from the Insti­tu­te of Con­tem­po­ra­ry Histo­ry. (5000 pages, 5 kg weight) The chair­wo­man asked, appar­ent­ly in order to awa­ken in the cul­prit insight into the repre­hen­si­bi­li­ty of his actions: »How many pages does this edi­ti­on have and how many pages does their work have (621 p.)? You see, they also distance them­sel­ves on every page, and you don’t!»This left me tem­po­r­a­ri­ly speechl­ess: a his­to­ri­cal-cri­ti­cal edi­ti­on, start­ing from the ori­gi­nal text of the first edi­ti­on, records all chan­ges in later edi­ti­ons, in addi­ti­on to sources and preli­mi­na­ry work. And Mein Kampf in par­ti­cu­lar was repea­ted­ly revi­sed bet­ween 1926 and 1943, depen­ding on poli­ti­cal expe­di­en­cy. That is why four pro­fes­sors were invol­ved, not coun­ting stu­dents and assistants. This is the reason for the 5000 pages, and not what the judge may under­stand by »cri­ti­cal dis­cus­sion«. Con­for­mist indi­gna­ti­on may also be found in it, but that is not the pur­po­se of such an undertaking.
  1. My com­men­ta­ry in the volu­me of 59 Kb, about 20 prin­ted pages wit­hout for­mat­ting, is irrele­vant for the court, alt­hough it is by no means »for the most part4 only con­cer­ned with bio­gra­phi­cal refe­ren­ces« (judgment 3CS 520 Js 38593/20) and the num­e­rous bio­gra­phi­cal refe­ren­ces are also due to my approach.

The Order of the Karls­ru­he Public Prosecutor’s Office:

The social ade­quacy clau­se of § 130, 2, 7, §86 para. 3 StGB does not app­ly in the pre­sent case. This would only be able to inter­ve­ne in the case of a serious­ly cri­ti­cal exami­na­ti­on of the con­tents of the book. Howe­ver, this is com­ple­te­ly lack­ing. A com­men­ta­ry on the book ›Mein Kampf‹ wit­hout a cri­ti­cal exami­na­ti­on of the con­tent of the racial ideo­lo­gy descri­bed the­r­ein can­not be regard­ed as a serious­ly cri­ti­cal com­men­ta­ry. (Order of the Karls­ru­he Public Prosecutor’s Office, Röber, As 113)

The social ade­quacy clau­se of §86 (3) StGB is inten­ded to enable scho­lar­ly dis­cus­sion of Natio­nal Socia­lism while main­tai­ning the fun­da­men­tal ban on its sym­bols. It is the start­ing point of a rat-king5 of judi­cial and supre­me court decis­i­ons with which I do not have to deal.

Howe­ver, I dis­pu­te that the public pro­se­cu­tor Röber is at all com­pe­tent to judge what is a »serious­ly cri­ti­cal dis­pu­te« or at what point a dis­pu­te is »serious­ly critical«.

  1. The »por­trait of Adolf Hit­ler in heroic form« is said to exist in the ori­gi­nal cover of the book Mein Kampf (1926). I got it from Wiki­pe­dia, but it can also be found on the home­page of the Insti­tu­te of Con­tem­po­ra­ry Histo­ry, and ever­y­whe­re else whe­re this book is men­tio­ned. (In the mean­ti­me I have repla­ced it by a pho­to­graph from the series »Das his­to­ri­sche Bild« of t‑online.de. Appar­ent­ly, the court con­siders this pho­to­graph to be less heroic).
  1. The­re is no orga­niza­ti­on, who­se cha­rac­te­ristic is the pic­tu­re of Adolf Hit­ler. The por­trait of Adolf Hit­ler was not even a trade­mark of the his­to­ri­cal NSDAP.
  1. »Influen­cing the social cli­ma­te« (indict­ment and ver­dict) is indis­pu­ta­b­ly as much a con­cern of mine as of anyo­ne else who deals with poli­ti­cal issues. That is why I also dis­tri­bu­te my wri­ting »Mas­quer­a­de Ball: Demo­cra­cy Unfolds to Reco­gniza­bi­li­ty. Social cuts and pre­pa­ra­ti­ons for war under the pre­text of fight­ing epi­de­mics« whe­re­ver possible.»Political cli­ma­te pro­tec­tion« might be a fan­cy new wor­ding for censorship.
  1. The court also wise­ly igno­res the actu­al con­tent of the home­page in which »Popanz.pdf« is embedded​.My views are on my home­page, and you can always ask me about them. But that is not the point of the court.

Modern Fascism Does Not Need a Swastika

Demo­cra­cy and fascism are not oppo­si­tes, but two sides of the same coin, forms of bour­geois rule. Fascism is demo­cra­cy in cri­sis. We have, as at the end of the twen­ties of the last cen­tu­ry, an inso­lu­b­le eco­no­mic cri­sis with mass unem­ploy­ment, from which we can get out only through war, pau­periza­ti­on and the dis­in­te­gra­ti­on of social struc­tures.6 This is whe­re »lea­der­ship« is needed.

It is the­r­e­fo­re obvious to deal with how and by which cir­cles a future cha­ris­ma­tic lea­der is built up, and which per­so­nal qua­li­fi­ca­ti­ons the future hero of the Free World should bring along. (That is why I cal­led the file »Popanz.pdf.«) Adolf Hit­ler is a pro­duc­ti­ve exam­p­le. In this respect, my com­ment is by no means super­fluous. I am also gua­ran­teed that I am not the only one who has such thoughts.

After World War II, the first-tier of Nazis were exe­cu­ted as a mat­ter of decen­cy, so to speak. It was the second-tier Nazis who built the Fede­ral Repu­blic of Germany.

In fact, it was a com­mu­ni­ty of life­styl­es, views and cul­tu­re that had ›rebuilt‹ (empha­sis in ori­gi­nal. B.K.) the foun­da­ti­ons of the eco­no­my, sta­te and army after 1949. The post­war lea­ders had all ear­ned their first spurs in the Third Reich, and many of them had emer­ged from the Secu­ri­ty Ser­vice of the SS7. (Johann Chapou­tot, Gehor­sam macht frei. A Brief Histo­ry of Manage­ment – from Hit­ler to the Pre­sent. Pro­py­lä­en, 2021, p.128)

In terms of per­son­nel con­ti­nui­ty, this is not­hing new. It was alre­a­dy the sub­ject of (e.g.) a book by Bernt Engel­mann at the end of the seven­ties: Wie wir wur­den, was wir sind (Trans: How we beca­me what we are). But Chapou­tot also shows the ideo­lo­gi­cal con­ti­nui­ty by the exam­p­le of the SS-Ober­füh­rer8 Prof. Dr. Rein­hard Höhn, the later head of the »Aka­de­mie für Füh­rungs­kräf­te der Wirt­schaft, Bad Harz­burg.»9

After 1990, the FRG incre­asing­ly assu­med »respon­si­bi­li­ty for the world,« as the wor­ding goes. In alli­ance with the »Euro­pean part­ners« and the USA, the FRG car­ri­ed out the par­ti­ti­on of Yugo­sla­via in the 1990s with thou­sands of deaths, in alli­ance it is today inci­ting Ukrai­ne to war against Rus­sia, in alli­ance it is waging wars for the par­ti­ti­on of the world in Afgha­ni­stan, Mali, Syria and in many other places. The EU could be seen as the rea­liza­ti­on of the »Euro­pean Grea­ter Eco­no­my« alre­a­dy plan­ned by the Nazis.

In order to suc­ceed with its impe­ria­list poli­cy, the more vio­lent the FRG appears extern­al­ly and intern­al­ly, the more it must always pro­ve that it has not­hing to do with the Nazi regime. That is why, for exam­p­le, the Bun­des­wehr has to pre­tend that it is some­thing com­ple­te­ly dif­fe­rent from Hitler’s Wehr­macht, in who­se foot­s­teps it stands, and that it has only exis­ted sin­ce 1956 or, even bet­ter, sin­ce 1990. This makes the cul­ti­va­ti­on of tra­di­ti­on more dif­fi­cult than with the »allies« …

That is why the »fight against right-wing extre­mism« is being waged, alt­hough and pre­cis­e­ly becau­se the last real Nazis have been dead for a long time. All kinds of curious figu­res fall vic­tim to the »fight against the right«, except the real right-win­gers and fascists: the rulers in sta­te and socie­ty of the FRG.

The impe­ria­list poli­cy on the out­side cor­re­sponds to the poli­cy of social cuts and the pre­pa­ra­ti­on for war on the insi­de. The Coro­na cri­sis has con­firm­ed my views. Under the pre­text of fight­ing a pan­de­mic, the medi­cal care of the popu­la­ti­on is rest­ric­ted direct­ly (dis­con­ti­nua­tion of pre­ven­ti­ve exami­na­ti­ons, post­po­ne­ment of ope­ra­ti­ons) and indi­rect­ly (when a visit to the doc­tor can result in two weeks’s qua­ran­ti­ne for the who­le fami­ly and then the loss of one’s job, peo­p­le are not so quick to take sick leave).

Mock medi­cal face masks ser­ve as an out­ward sign of the »New Nor­mal.« Plans are drawn up for qua­ran­ti­ne camps first for mask refu­sers, then for vac­ci­na­ti­on oppon­ents. Public health beco­mes an incre­asing­ly obvious pre­text for exclu­ding a por­ti­on of the popu­la­ti­on from social life and health care »to keep the health­ca­re sys­tem afforda­ble.« (Which part and how many is, of cour­se, still sub­ject to »demo­cra­tic deba­te.« And Coro­na is just the begin­ning, a tri­al bal­loon, if you will). The role of anti-Semi­tism today is taken over by a com­ple­te­ly irra­tio­nal fear of viruses.

I would recom­mend it now to ever­yo­ne poli­ti­cal­ly: Clear line, clear direc­tion. Oppon­ents of vac­ci­na­ti­on must have tan­gi­ble dis­ad­van­ta­ges. And basi­cal­ly, in a way, you can’t deal with them any lon­ger. That’s the way it is. You can’t ship them off to Mada­gas­car.10 What can you do? (Prof. Heinz Bude, on Gabor Steingart’s News Pod­cast, Dec. 7, 2021)

Heinz Bude is not only a socio­lo­gy pro­fes­sor, but co-aut­hor of the so-cal­led panic paper of 2020 (»How we get CoViD-19 under con­trol«, sce­na­rio paper of the Fede­ral Minis­try of the Inte­ri­or) He knows what he is say­ing when he allu­des to »Mada­gas­car »and in which tra­di­ti­on he places the »Coro­na measures«.

The social exclu­si­on, fol­lo­wed by the expro­pria­ti­on and mur­der of the Jews, like that of the Poles and Rus­si­ans, the kil­ling of peo­p­le who could not be exploi­ted (T4) and the forced labor of the peo­p­les of Euro­pe in an ever-incre­asing spi­ral, was not an out­break of irra­tio­na­li­ty. Or rather, the irra­tio­na­li­ty (for exam­p­le) of anti-Semi­tism had the clear pur­po­se in the Third Reich of gene­ra­ting reve­nue and mini­mi­zing expen­dit­ures wit­hout rai­sing taxes. The sup­p­ly and thus the loyal­ty of the majo­ri­ty of the popu­la­ti­on was ther­eby ensu­red. (Götz Aly, Hitler’s Volks­staat. Rob­be­ry, Race War and Natio­nal Socia­lism. Fischer Ver­lag 2005)

Tho­se oppon­ents of the mea­su­res who demons­tra­te today with a Jewish star and the inscrip­ti­on »Unvac­ci­na­ted« are in no way tri­via­li­zing Natio­nal Socia­lism. Rather, they cor­rect­ly cha­rac­te­ri­ze the pre-fascist cha­rac­ter of the Fede­ral Repu­blic of Ger­ma­ny. It is a mista­ke for some demo­cra­tic »late­ral thin­kers« to distance them­sel­ves from them.

The ban on the sym­bols of Natio­nal Socia­lism that has long sin­ce been his­to­ri­cal­ly sett­led ser­ves today to jus­ti­fy a modern form of fascism, the open­ly ter­ro­rist dic­ta­tor­ship over the wage-ear­ners. Histo­ry repeats its­elf here as a come­dy: today’s com­pli­ant jud­ges no lon­ger pin the badge of the »NS-Rechts­wah­rer­bund« to their coats, but tie a rag in front of their mouths as a sign of their loyalty.

It is the­r­e­fo­re right, not »Volks­ver­het­zung« to dis­re­gard this publi­shing ban. I also do not distance mys­elf from Hitler’s racism, becau­se it is your and your kind’s cri­mes, not mine. The car­ri­ers of modern, actual­ly threa­tening fascism are not some Hit­ler admi­rers, »Reichs­bür­ger«, mili­ta­ry-boot-fetis­hists and pro­le­ta­ri­an-recrea­tio­nal-ram­bos, which are ser­ved to us in the media as neo-Nazis or »rights«. Fascism comes from abo­ve. The modern fascists are the demo­cra­tic par­ties that domi­na­te the Bun­des­tag in their entirety.

At 68, I am no lon­ger able to »dis­cuss the ques­ti­ons of our social order by thro­wing stones in the street (Jérô­me Blan­qui, Let­ter to Proudhon11).«

But I can per­sua­de peo­p­le when I am con­vin­ced of a cause.

And I can sit.

I am the­r­e­fo­re rela­xed about my condemnation.

Bern­hard Klevenz

I ask the court to com­mu­ni­ca­te this admis­si­on to the per­son who has denoun­ced me.

Sub­se­quent Developments

Judge Nowak did not let me read out this state­ment. The »right to a fair hea­ring« (Art. 101 GG) does not app­ly to poli­ti­cal per­sons. I said that I would not say any­thing except this state­ment. I was then allo­wed to read out indi­vi­du­al sen­ten­ces and the con­clu­si­on. I han­ded over this state­ment as well as my wri­ting »Mas­ked ball: Demo­cra­cy unfolds to reco­gniza­bi­li­ty …« to the court and the »public«, which con­sis­ted of a young man at the very back of the hall. I then took off my mask and was excluded from the tri­al. I wore the same mask with holes as at the first tri­al. So what I wro­te about the ben­ding of the law by Judge Hin­ter­may­er appli­es just as much to Judge Nowak. Four­teen days later I recei­ved my sen­tence. Six months on pro­ba­ti­on. The con­di­ti­on of pro­ba­ti­on was the pay­ment of 1500 Euro, which I neces­s­a­ri­ly have to vio­la­te (even if I were wil­ling to pay). The dead­line was Janu­ary 15. The­re will be no fur­ther negotiations.


1 A moti­on was made to wai­ve the mask requi­re­ment at the hea­ring pur­su­ant to Sec­tion 176 of the GVG. The Chair­wo­man rejec­ted this

Moti­on, citing her »Sit­zungs­po­li­zei.« (Trans.: a con­cept in Ger­man law, the right and duty of a pre­si­ding judge in to main­tain order in their courtroom)

I sta­te:

(1) Judge Hin­ter­may­er invo­ked the Sit­zungs­po­li­zei con­fer­red upon her by the GVG (Gerichts­ver­fas­sungs­ge­setz) to over­ri­de ano­ther pro­vi­si­on of the GVG. An immi­nent dan­ger to the health of the litig­ants that could jus­ti­fy such a mea­su­re never exis­ted, and does not exist to this day. If this is not a vio­la­ti­on of jus­ti­ce, what is it?

(2) The judge hers­elf, of cour­se, did not belie­ve in such a dan­ger: the defen­dant wore an FFP2 mask with holes pun­ched in it, visi­ble to all par­ti­ci­pan­ts in the tri­al, which made the alle­ged pur­po­se of the mea­su­re absurd. If the judge had real­ly belie­ved in a health hazard, she would have excluded the defen­dant or adjour­ned the proceedings.

2 That has sin­ce come to an end. Not becau­se of a mira­cle cure, but becau­se I know what the court will say, and becau­se I get it sent to me any­way on behalf of the peo­p­le. The­re is not­hing worth hea­ring in court.

3 This is not an arbi­tra­ry offen­se like »drunk dri­ving,« whe­re you can sett­le for a leni­ent sen­tence, but a rest­ric­tion on free­dom of expres­si­on. The Coro­na mea­su­res have, of cour­se, streng­the­ned me in this.

4 Should mean »for the most part and at the most«, if I have inter­pre­ted the chair­wo­man correctly.

5 Accor­ding to Wiki­pe­dia, a rat king is a rat colo­ny who­se mem­bers, living in filth and con­fi­ne­ment, are indis­so­lu­b­ly knot­ted and glued tog­e­ther by their tails. Rat kings are not able to move or live; howe­ver, they are fed by other rats. I do not want to insult the Ger­man judi­cia­ry unneces­s­a­ri­ly, so I will spa­re mys­elf a remark that is on the tip of my tongue.

6 »Histo­ry does not repeat its­elf, but it rhy­mes,« someone once said.

Com­pared to the eve of World War II, social decay is more advan­ced; see »Zuwan­de­rung als Pro­jekt des Kapi­tals« und »Der Fleiß der andern.«

7 In full: »Sicher­heits­dienst des Reichs­füh­rers SS«, i.e., the secret ser­vice of the SS, next to and in com­pe­ti­ti­on with the »Abwehr« of the Wehrmacht.

8 Ober­füh­rer: Hig­hest staff offi­cer rank of the SS.

9 Both the manage­ment of Aldi and the offi­cers of the Bun­des­wehr were trai­ned at this insti­tu­te until the 1970s.

10 For a time, the Nazis plan­ned to deport Jews to Madagascar.

11 Quo­ted from P. J. Proudhon, What is Pro­per­ty? quo­ted from »The Dili­gence of Others«, see my home­page unde​mo​krat​.4li​ma​.de.

Image: Cari­ca­tu­re »The litt­le lady Jus­ti­ce is the obe­dient lap child of her capi­ta­list dad­dy, from Wen meen­ten Sie denn? Pro­le­ta­ri­an Jokes and Cari­ca­tures 1919 – 1933, Dietz Ver­lag Ber­lin in August 1989

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert