On Holocaust hoaxes – Vol II – english version

[Note: I hope this second text can be understood. The first text was written very incomprehensibly. And I have no time to correct the failures of my bad english.]

Yesterday evening Israeli blogger Lirun posted a question on the net. The question itself is less intresting, cause Lirun ougth to discover at first sigth that the mail is a hoax. And exaclty that is intresting.

Are Israelis supposed to know how other countries like Germany deal with the topic „Shoa“? Or are they perhaps only victims of sporadic hoax-attacks? Well, the Israeli media reports [about Germany] solely of acute investations of Neo-Nazism, or about institutionalizations [like the holocaust-memorial in Berlin]. Afterwards, a stultifyed river of mind trash of so-called „pro-Israeli activists“ [of german-austrian descent] gushes into the comment sections that have only one goal: To romantizise the situation into a „the real Holocaust in on the brink“-situation. [1] I personally don't care if Israeli souls interfere appeasing or upheating. Nonetheless the raised question is still to debate, why educated people like Lirun can not detect cheap knitted hoaxes for themselves.

What went wrong?

Germany, that we have to see as the precursor for all western countries in the processing of the incidents around the Shoa[2] did not reached the access to the confidence of the jewish soul to date and it will never reach it. The reason is not the killing of the jewish nation itself, not the further on rifing antisemitsm, not the absent willingness to participate in the reminiscence of the holocaust. In principle we talk about two different models of mnemonic determination of cultural identity, that can unify their intersections only by direct contact. The German does not find his identity with the site-related endowing of identity [mnemonic transfer of history and codes at graves – Focus: Jerusalem], or out of over millennia adopted mnemonic techniques [Psalm 137 – experiance of diaspora and persecution] which are embedded in the collective memory. The German in this area [above areas] is like a foundling, who is found every day from another historic content. [He is found, not he finds.] Germans do not react collective, they react intuitive-instantly. It is not possible to demonstrate out of the german collective memory how Eichmann could have become what Eichmann was. Out of it you can not demonstrate how a large part of german-jewish intellectuals tried to arrange themselves with Hitler. But what is the principle that makes them react collective? „One fool makes a thousand fools“.[4] The principle of the leader.

Today we talk of two different models of the fixed collective principle of the leader: Traditional and constitution-partiotic. 62 years after the end of the Shoa you can talk about a success, because the constitution-partiotic model displaced essentially the traditional. The principle of the leader is today and daily arranged on the basis of the democratic system and in humanitarian space. The leaders of today represent the democratic system, or are even non-poltical figures in sports or entertainment.[5] With this version we can see a growing friendship between Israel and Germany and every year new ties and steps into a shared future in economy and of the sociteties. The leaders of today are responsible-by-law and the situation of the jewish minority in Germany enhances every year. Otherwise is it impossible for Germany even in this state to exclude the latencies of the traditional model. Germans are still affected with xenophobia and antisemitism at high numbers. The old-fashioned ethocentric codes of territorial and cultural predominance are still transported, cause the system of the fixed collective principle of the leader has not changed.[6] The country has no protection for „new forms“ that are assimilated like we can see in the behaviour of 3rd-generation muslims in germany. Living in a democracy in Germany protects other countries, it does not protect germans or people that live here.

The internal debates, from „Schlußstrich“ over „Möllemann“ to „Holocaust Ligtht“[7], or laudable efforts of very much regional constitution-patriots to give the the horror of the Holocaust a remembering face will not detach Germans Gordian Knot. And if we are looking into the miserable data of antisemitism, the knowlegde about the holocaust, or simply into the fact that the word „jew“ represents one of the most harsh abuses under schoolchildren, I have to say that I have no answer on how we can detach it. As a german, I have to wonder about myself. Why aren't I a german of german collective rememberance? The answer is simple: I had luck and at the rigth time the rigth persons that took me by the hand.

Is it possible for Israel to live with a germany that produces its identity like it produced it in the 20ties? I fear it has to.

Now back to the question: What went wrong?

Nothing. Lirun had the luck that a german that took him by the hand and told him that the mail is a hoax. Now, this is not only a lesson on how to achieve transparency in the complex processing of the holocaust. [Ask – Check – Talk] We can go further and say that this story teaches us that the germans have to understand that they must confront themselve with the fact that any stupid hoax-writer[8] can use items of german history to denigrate somebody. [In this case the ... university of Kentucky.] and poeple will belive. [There are still dozends of websites presenting the mail an „true“.] And they must understand that they receive letters from Ahmanidejad not because he is an antisemite. They receive them because the large part of the WORLD belives in this moment that the germans are antisemites and want to receive the letter, even he-Ahmanidejad- knows that this generalization is wrong. Only the germans themselve can escape out of this stupid game. The „new role of germany in the world“ is an illusion as long the „leader-principles“ reigns that country.


[1] Paranoid backlash after 9/11 that goes along with the hitlerization of political tasks. Not to confuse with anglo-american propaganda. And finds massive counter attacks of antisemits of all degrees in german political forums and texts. „Root-Iran“-Exapmle: The „root“ of the Iranian activities -Hezbollah/A-Bomb-Propaganda- lies in the Israeli settlement policy as paranoid counter argument to „The germans deliver goods into Iran cause they want the Mullahs to finish the work of Hitler“. Approximately 70% of the texts in german forums communicate on that level, which resuts in the increase of state traced hate-crime acts into the 10tsds per anno in germany.

[2] Not to confuse with the processing of the victims. Western countries could only change some rules, like International Law in the aftermath of WWII but the core-lessons for the human race must come out of the offenders processing. [German Constitution:] „Should never happen again“ is not an assignment to „never do it again“. Its an assignment to create results to avoid future genozidal acts. If we look at the situation of the world today we could speak of a total failure of german intelligentsia: Not german thinkers processed the act into the formulation of new human-systems. They found entry in the anglo-american bipolar-system of „good and bad“, „black and white“. See [8]

[3] Intersections like loyality in relation to the content of democratic systems. Direct contact: Especially the question of „The rigth of Israel to exist as a jewish state“ needs this.

[4] Grimmelshausen, „Simplicissimus“

[5] Ex: „Eye for an eye“. To claim for damages, or to counter the claims is one of the favorit german hobbies today. The courts are full of them. Germans are absolutly compatible to jewish concepts and they respect the concept. Opposed to that is the boosted use of of the concept in the way Martin Luther explained it: The jews killed Jesus and thats the reason Jews should be killed. The use today in Germanies paranoid debates try to explain that jews are natural killers that can not make peace with arabs. Even if the majority of germans live their life in that concept, the guideline of their leader Luther reigns their consciousness. Confronted with the „jewish sense“ of „Eye for an Eye“ a large part of germans react as constitution-patriots and refuse to use it again in the sense of Luther. The question here is why they have to be confronted, instead of knowing it before, or better: are knowing it cause its a part of their collective memory.

[6] Ex: Media Campaign „You are Germany“ – 2006

[7] „Schlußstrich“ – debate about claims of nationalistic-conservative thinkers that there should be an end of germanys institutionalized responsibility for the holocaust.

„Möllemann“ – about the question how far critisism of Israel can go and not become antisemitic. [Debate? More drama]

„Holocaust Ligth“ – about the ways to teach contents of the holocaust, boom of holocaust-films. „Schindlers Liste“= A film that showes history and tries to teach humanitarian behaviour. Or „train de vie“ vs „The last train“

[8] The bipolar anglo-american system can work here because of the entry of german thinkers in that system. One is good that has a good intention relating to a bad thing -Nazi- the symbol for bad germans and germany. The content of a bad german must be direcly prooved with the content of the NS-Regime, including the fact that the NS-Regimes myth is a derivate of german culture. To describe the failure of german thinkers to go their own way a simple example. In Heidelberg theres a place called the Thing-Stätte. A NS-building. At the opening ceremony with Joseph Goebbels about 20 000 Nazis appeared there. June 1995 Monserrat Caballe gave a concert there 40 0000 people. Statistical still 20 000 antisemits, or „from anti-jewish ressentiments affected people“. Goebbels is bad – Caballe good. Who cares about the stable number of antisemits? The anglo-american system was a chance for the german institutions to become a stable partner in NATO, EU and a chance for germans to get rich. To de-antisemitize [and much more things] is a chance germany can only realize with a changes system of collective rememberance.