“the strangers”, “the foreigners”, “the aliens”, on their culture, history and backwardness. Is there a relationship between the persecution of foreign people and the speedy transport of all kinds of tales and reports about “the others” carried by the “most modern“ means of transport, through “media” of all kinds? Stories, which are eagerly, consumed everywhere? Consumed? Simply consumed? Or do the stories also create an inner feeling of superiority in us? Being superior to everybody else? Over their poverty, their mishaps and disasters, their inability, their incompetence, their corruption, their arbitrariness in life. Does it not give one a feeling of superiority when compared to social groups like political refugees (or to those who only pose to be so), other refugees and migrants, (both undesirable and useful), people without shelter and those who are labelled as work shy, people who live on social welfare, etc., etc.? Don’t we feel better when we look down to such groups? Are we not better? Haven’t we achieved more than others? Aren’t we the civilised ones? Shouldn’t we feel proud, proud of our achievements?
Since when are we being taught that the quality of human beings could be discerned by their physical appearance such as: big – small, strong – weak, fair – dark, blue-eyed – non-blue-eyed, white – black and the many other so called racial features? What is “race”? Since when has mankind believed that there are different human “races” with different qualities? Under what circumstances did the tale come about that the “Aryan race” is superior to all other “races”? And when was the tribe of the “Indogermans” and/or of the “Indoeuropeans” discovered? Discovered or devised? Did the “Aryan race” really exist, or the "Indogermans”, or the “Indoeuropeans”? Or were they just wishful and useful fantasies? Since when have categories like: “We” and the “Others” been in existence?
Don’t we have to ask, isn’t it essential to know, for example, how rich countries became rich? How come that rich people always become richer, also within the rich countries? Why do the rich states hunt the militarily inferior states? Why do the rich states hide more and more behind different fronts like, for example, NATO, “International Community”, and commonly prey upon weaker states and other cultures? “International Community”? What is hidden behind this facade? The United Nations? The Security Council of the United Nations? NATO? What is it, this NATO? Which states have created the “International Community”? What for? Is it based on “International Law” or can it be derived from “International Law”? What is “International Law”? Why are these states not content with the United Nations”? Isn’t it essential to ask whether there is a relationship between the bombing of weak states and cultures by the “International Community” on the one hand and the hunts of foreign people within the territories of the “International Community” on the other hand? And then: Who hunts whom within the territories of this “International Community”?
Inevitably we wonder how the youth feels when “celebrities with bodyguards” urge “decent people” to show their “faces” in public and to organise a “revolt of the decent ones” against violence within our societies. In the 21st century? Would there be similar appeals in Germany, for example, if the Neo–Nazis there did not desecrate synagogues and Jewish cemeteries, but still go on hunting people of “inferior races”? Or if synagogues and Jewish cemeteries were also to be desecrated everywhere within the “International Community” – or even more so for that matter?
One is amazed by the variety of inflated explanations for such infringements that are created by the “media“. There is an ever-ongoing competition amongst celebrities to invent the most stunning, most striking and the most marketable slogans to win public image. In all kinds of areas. What a wonderful strategy! Don’t they talk about “occupying” themes? Unisono? Occupying themes? Or do they intend to occupy eventual answers as well? Do we have a chance to get a word in edgewise in the midst of “media“ blast in order to ask ourselves, in Germany for example: what had there been before the events “Hoyerswerda”, “Solingen”, or wherever else, could happen? Had there been “a revolt of the decent ones”?
Do we still remember, what the German lady film director Doris Doerries proposed on the occasion of “a revolt of the decent cultural celebrities” in the Hamburg–Thalia–Theatre after the murderous affair in Rostock? Her programmatic proposal? She explained that “looking away” has nothing to do with “decency” but rather with fear. We are afraid of being confronted with rowdies. Therefore, Doris Doerries proposed that we, the “decent” people, should always wear a visible sign in public (that day the celebrities wore a purple band), so that we would all know that we are not alone against rowdies. In all public places. This is what Doris Doerries proposed live on TV. Overwhelming applause. This was after “Rostock”. Do we really recall when “Rostock” happened? What happened there? Why do we forget events more and more? Faster than ever? Why is our memory getting shorter and shorter?
And now we are summoned by “celebrities with bodyguards” to show our “face” in public. Have civil courage. In 2002. Ten years after “Rostock”! Due to this cultural development and influence how should we be able to enquire what was there before Rostock happened? Before the “jokes on Turks “ started making the rounds? Before the “foreign workers” began being called “guests”? Before the “Reichskristallnacht”, before Hitler came into power, before “Mein Kampf”? Before the First World War? Before “colonialism”? Before the age of the “enlightenment”? Endless questions, no answers, of course. We are usually averse to questions, so we are not expected to put questions like these, are we?
But we may not stick to the rules of this game. We are learning and practising to ask questions. For example: Is today’s daily violence something new? We don’t mean the daily hounding of “foreigners” alone, but also of socially weak groups like children, the disabled, the needy and women. What are the fundamental traits of this culture? Why is it given such varied names every now and then? Who are the inventors? Why do they make up new names for the same culture and try to hammer them into our brain through the omnipresent media? Are they perhaps afraid that we could see through the fundamental traits of this culture? Are we able to do it? Or are we too stupid? Had we been stupid in the past, why this incessant hammering? Why is so much effort being spent on “political education” while simultaneously keeping back essential “political information”? Are we perhaps not so stupid? And therefore, the target of this uninterrupted brainwashing?
Why do we ask useless questions about the past? Is it not more important to try to grasp the direction of the speedy evolution of our time and contribute to make it a revolution? Is it not more important to put “marks” on the stages of development and label them by “names”? Don’t we get enough new names for this culture time and again? Is this exercise of inventing adequate names not lagging behind the development of culture and civilisation? We have not followed this path and internalised the rules of this game. We rather ask questions such as: Is it something new, this daily violence that confronts us? Why these daily violent attacks and abuse on foreigners, on strangers, also on weaker members of the society like children, women, the poor? What are the pillars, what are the fundamentals of this culture, which have been identified and labelled by clever and dynamic minds—of course well paid—over and over again? Why is the full power of the modern media being used to drum into our heads every new label of this new culture? Are these “scientists” pressured by this speedily developing culture trying to find new names to characterise its new phases? Do they manage to keep pace with the “progress” of this name giving ritual? Can we even remember all those names?
We can recall quite a few, however: Christian, occidental, European, industrial, western, post-war–, democratic, modern, humanistic, formed, solidarity–, leisure-time–, information–, risk–, media–, open, global, television–, Internet–, information–, interactive, fun-, media-, knowledge culture, etc. etc.. How can this ritual of attributing so many names to a single society and culture be interpreted? Is it an expression of a special fantasy, special accuracy or does it only express embarrassment and helplessness; a search for identity; or a desperate attempt to veil
