“The global culture … militates against … African unity. It serves the purpose of the multinationals. It is a postmodern application of the old adage ‘divide and rule’.

The movement towards a global culture … [and] this postmodern tendency towards cultural fragmentation and identity struggles … are two faces of the same coin. …

There should be no African unity. People should remain divided, fragmented, confused. And new slogans, new catchwords, new worthy causes must be found to hide this truth. ‘Identity‘, ‘multiculturalism’, ‘respect for other cultures’, ‘cultural studies‘, the list will go on proliferating, so as soon as we unveil one world another is found to replace it, so that our African peoples remain perpetually confused, so that our African intellectuals and thinkers and writers are drawn into the noose. … They forget that there is no culture without an economy to support it, without political institutions to defend it, without a land in which it can strike its roots. That ‘cultures’ and ‘identities’ are doomed without a material base, condemned to whither away. …

Otherwise, culture, identity, multiculturalism become an exhibition, a spectacle for the pleasure of others to see, to consume. Like the festivals of African culture I have seen in London, or Copenhagen or New York. Like the visibility of African-Americans in music, dance and sports and their almost total exclusion from the decisive levels of banking, production, business and other areas linked to intellectual or administrative or economic power.”

aus: Nawal El Saadawi: Why keep asking me about my identity? Rede, New York, März 1996, hier in: The Nawal El Saadawi Reader, London/New York: Zed 1997, S.121/122.

Abb.: Riri Suheri: Bhineka (diversity?), 2017, indoartnow, im Internet.

08/22

“… the World Athletics president, Sebastian Coe, gave his clearest indication yet that the governing body would do more to protect female sport.

‘We’ve always been guided by the science, and the science is pretty clear: we know that testosterone is the key determinant in performance,’ he said.

‘I’m really over having any more of these discussions with second-rate sociologists who sit there trying to tell me or the science community that there may be some issue. There isn’t. Testosterone is the key determinant in performance.’ …

‘We have two categories in our sport: one is age and one is gender,’ he added. ‘Age because we think it’s better that Olympic champions don’t run against 14-year-olds in community sports. And gender because if you don’t have a gender separation, no woman would ever win another sporting event.'”

aus: Sean Ingle: Caster Semenya out of world 5,000m as Coe signals tougher female sport rules, The Guardian Online, 21.7.22, im Internet

Abb.: Sonja van Kerkhoff: Dress It Up, 2004, im Internet.

07/22

“… Two days later, the same group of countries stated they support Ukraine’s proceedings before the International Court of Justice, seeking ‘to establish that Russia has no lawful basis to take military action in Ukraine on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations of genocide’. …

Now it’s interesting to look at which countries signed up for these initiatives. Of course, the US, the UK, Norway, Iceland, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and all the EU-27 members, including the EU as a collective entity. But what about the others?

The other signatories are Albania, Andorra, the Marshall Islands, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Palau and San Marino. …

We have already argued that even in the context of Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine, his world is not so small. In the UN, the home of 193 nations, he can still count on international support – or at least neutrality – from dozens of countries, including from some of the world’s most populous ones, like India, Brazil, South Africa, or Mexico. …

The EU remains attractive to most of the world for its living standards, but less so for its democratic and human rights values.

The paradox is that the rich West is attractive but not influential enough, both at the international and grassroots level. And at the same time, the rejection of Western values is becoming an increasingly powerful ideology shared by billions.”

aus: Georgi Gotev: How big and powerful is the West?, Euraktiv, im Internet

07/22

“The question of dethroning … will always be, as it has always been, an extraordinary question of state, and wholly out of the law; a question (like all other questions of state) of dispositions, and of means, and of probable consequences, rather than of positive rights. … The speculative line of demarcation, where obedience ought to end, and resistance must begin, is faint, obscure, and not easily definable. It is not a single act, or a single event, which determines it. Governments must be abused and deranged indeed, before it can be thought of; and the prospect of the future must be as bad as the experience of the past. When things are in that lamentable condition, the nature of the disease is to indicate the remedy to those whom nature has qualified to administer in extremities this critical, ambiguous, bitter potion to a distempered state. Times and occasions, and provocations, will teach their own lessons. The wise will determine from the gravity of the case, the irritable from sensibility to oppression; the high-minded from disdain and indignation at abusive power in unworthy hands; the brave and bold from the love of honourable danger in a generous cause: but, with or without right, a revolution will be the very last resource of the thinking and the good.”

aus: Edmund Burke: Reflections on the Revolution in France. London u.a.: Penguin 1986 (1790), S.116/117.

06/22

“‘Traditions’ which appear or claim to be old are often quite recent in origin and sometimes invented. …

‘Invented tradition’ is taken to mean a set of practices, normally governed by overtly or tacitly accepted rules and of ritual or symbolic nature, which seek to inculcate certain values and norms of behaviour by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past. In fact, where possible, they normally attempt to establish continuity with a suitable historic past. …

‘Tradition’ … must be distinguished clearly from ‘custom’ which dominates so-called ‘traditional’ societies. The object and characteristic of ‘traditions’, including invented ones, is invariance. The past, real or invented, to which they refer imposes fixed (normally formalized) practices, such as repetition. … ‘Custom’ cannot afford to be invariant, because even in ‘traditional’ societies life is not so. Customary or common law still shows this combination of flexibility in substance and formal adherence to precedent. …

Convention and routine are not ‘invented traditions’ since their functions, and therefore their justifications, are technical rather than ideological. …

Sometimes new traditions could be grafted on old ones, sometimes they could be devised by borrowing from the well-supplied warehouses of official ritual, symbolism and moral exhortation – religion and princely pomp, folklore and freemasonry (itself an earlier invented tradition of great symbolic force) …

It is clear that plenty of political institutions, ideological movements and groups – not least in nationalism – were so unprecedented that even historic continuity had to be invented, for example by creating an ancient past beyond effective historical continuity. … It is also clear that entirely new symbols and devices came into existence as part of national movements and states, such as the national anthem (of which the British in 1740 seems to be the earliest), the national flag (still largely a variation of the French revolutionary tricolour, evolved 1790-4) or the personification of ‘the nation‘ in symbol or image …” ¹

“Tartan – that is cloth woven in a geometrical pattern of colours – was known in Scotland in the sixteenth century (it seems to have come from Flanders …), the kilt … – unknown in 1726, … suddenly appeared two years later … its inventor was an English Quaker from Lancashire, Thomas Rawlinson … [there was] no differentiation of clans, no continuity of setts … in October 1745 … the Caledonian Mercury advertised a ‘great choice of tartans, the newest patterns’ …” ²

“[During most of the nineteenth century, British] royal ceremonies were … remote, inaccessible group rites, performed for the benefit of the few rather than the edification of the many. … For the majority of the great royal pageants staged during the first three-quarters of the nineteenth century oscillated between farce and fiasco. … Slowly … [then, a] coherent syntax and language of symbols and meanings emerged. In 1887, after fifty years on the throne, the Widow of Windsor was persuaded – although only with the greatest reluctance – to participate in a grand state pageant in London. It was, indeed, a risk, for her unpopularity made it impossible to predict what sort of reception she would receive. … Nevertheless, the resulting Golden Jubilee … was a great success. … Meticulous planning, popular enthusiasm, widespread reporting and unprecedented splendour were successfully allied. … Three people … were of major significance: … [While] Reginald Brett, Viscount Esher … provided the expertise and organizing flair, and Edward [VII] himself supplied the enthusiasm and support, it was Elgar, whose compositions raised ceremonial music … to mere works of art of their own right. …” ³

1) aus: Eric Hobsbawm: Introduction. Inventing Traditions. In: Eric Hobsbawm / Terence Ranger: The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge University Press, 2020 (Orig.-Ausgabe 1982), S.2-7.

2) aus: Hugh Trevor-Roper: The invention of Tradition: The Highland Tradition of Scotland, im selben Band, S. 18.23.

3) aus: David Cannadine: The Context, Performance and Meaning of Ritual: The British Monarchy and the ‘Invention of Tradition”, c.1820-1977, im selben Band, S.111-136

Abb.: Ron Noganosh: Shield for a Modern Warrior, or Concessions to Beads and Feathers in Indian Art, 1983, Indigenous Art Collection, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, Gatineau, im Internet.

06/21

“In 2002 … we were dragged down by the swamp of the Hungarian left. … But, Dear Friends, in 2002 we … did not adopt a defensive attitude, … we played to win and proclaimed the Reconquista. …

The plan succeeded. In 2010 we came back. … Hungary is the laboratory in which we tested the antidote to dominance by progressives. … This spring Hungary has received its fourth dose, … the patient has been completely cured. The medication is open-source, free of charge, and comprises twelve points …

[1] … Play by our own rules. The only way to win is to refuse to accept the solutions and the paths offered by others. … Those who play by their opponents’ rules are certain to lose.

[2] … National conservatism in domestic politics. The cause of the nation is not a matter of ideology, nor even of tradition. The reason that churches and families must be supported is that they are the building blocks of the nation. … The Achilles heel of progressives is precisely that they want to impose their dreams on society. But for us that danger is also an opportunity, … one must find the issues on which the Left is completely out of touch with reality and highlight them …

[3] … The national interest in foreign policy. Progressives always think that foreign policy is a battle of ideologies: a battle between good and bad … Something is wrong with that concept. Our response should be …: the Nation First! Hungary First! America First! … We know that Ukraine is not defending Hungary. That is a nonsensical idea! … Our aim is to restore peace, not to continue the war, because that is what is in our national interest. Hungary First!

[4] … we must have our own media. We can only show up the insane ideas of the progressive Left if we have media that helps us to do this. … Naturally, the Grand Old Party, too, has allied media outlets, but they are no match for the liberals’ dominance of the media. My friend Tucker Carlson stands alone and immovable. His show has the highest audience figures. What does this mean? It means that there should be shows like his day and night – or, as you say, 24/7.

[5] … expose your opponent’s intentions. … We must not only break down today’s taboos, but also tomorrow’s taboos. … For instance, there is the issue of LGBTQ propaganda targeting children. This is still a new thing over here, but we have already destroyed it. We brought the issue out into the open and held a referendum on it. The overwhelming majority of Hungarians have rejected this form of sensitization of children. By revealing at an early stage what the Left were preparing for, we forced them on the defensive, and when they attacked our initiative they were eventually forced to admit the reality of their plan. …

[6] … economic policies that benefit the majority of voters. … In the final analysis people want jobs: people want jobs, not economic theories. … If a government of the right is unable to deliver all this, it is doomed to failure.

[7] do not get pushed to the extreme. … What is the difference between the denial of science by the extreme right and the denial of biology by LGBTQ movements? The answer is simple: there is no difference whatsoever. We must render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, unto God the things that are God’s, and unto Science the things that are Science’s. We may gain immense popularity on internet forums by promoting conspiracy theories – … but in reality we will alienate a large proportion of the electorate, find ourselves pushed to the margins, and eventually we will lose.

[8] … read every day. A book a day keeps the defeat away. … Reading … helps us to understand what our opponents think and where their thinking is flawed. If we know that, the rest is mere technique. … It is true that the spin doctor is a useful species; but understanding the problem is something that must be done by us as policymakers.

[9] … have faith. A lack of faith is dangerous. If you do not believe that there will be a final reckoning and that you will be held to account for your actions before God, you will think that you can do anything that is in your power. …

[10] … make friends. Our opponents, the progressive liberals and neo-Marxists, have unlimited unity: they have one another’s backs. By contrast, we conservatives are capable of squabbling with one another over the smallest issue. And then we wonder at how our opponents corner us. We do indeed possess intellectual sophistication, and we care about intellectual nuance. But if we want to succeed in politics, we should never look at what we disagree on, but instead look for our common ground. … Believe me, if we do not, our opponents will hunt us down one by one.

[11] … build communities. … The fewer communities there are and the lonelier people are, the more voters go to the liberals; and the more communities there are, the more votes we get. It is as simple as that. …

[12] … build institutions. For successful politics, one needs institutions and institutes. Whether they are think tanks, educational centers, talent workshops, foreign relations institutes, youth organizations or whatever, they should have a political aspect. Let us not forget: politicians come and go, but institutions stay with us for generations. They, the institutions, have the capacity to renew politics intellectually. New ideas, new thoughts and new people are needed again and again. If they run out, we will run out of ammunition, and our opponent will show no mercy in laying us low.”

… Progressives are threatening the whole of Western civilization … Progressive liberals, neo-Marxists intoxicated by the dream of wokeness, those in the pay of George Soros, the advocates of the open society. They want to abolish the Western way of life that you and we love so much: what your parents fought for during World War II and the Cold War, and what we fought for when we drove the Soviet communists out of Hungary.

My Friends,

We must take up the fight … We must take back the institutions in Washington and Brussels. … We must coordinate the movement of our troops, because we face a great challenge. … The Hungarian lesson is that we have no silver bullet. We only have work. We need to do it. Let’s go out and do it! Thanks and good luck!”

aus: Speech by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán at the opening of CPAC Hungary, Cabinet Office of the Prime Minister, Budapest, 19.5.22, im Internet

Abb.: Lucia Žatkuliaková, Slowakei, 2024, taz online, im Internet.

05/22

“In general, there is the sense that a country whose leaders have long had their finger on the pulse of the Kremlin has lost the count. ‘There used to be the sense: we know these people; they know us,’ the Finnish thinker and legal theorist Martti Koskenniemi told me. ‘But you can’t negotiate with a power that no longer knows where its interests lie. And if the power is more powerful than you are – and becomes in a sense crazy – then membership in Nato becomes reasonable.’ …

‘It’s not that we were very insecure yesterday, and will be very secure in Nato tomorrow,’ he says. ‘It’s that this is a negotiation with a country that can no longer negotiate, and so Nato membership helps clarify our position to them.’”

aus: Thomas Meaney: Finland and Sweden may join Nato – but even they can’t guarantee that will make them safer, Guardian Online, 18.5.22, im Internet

05/22

Northern Ireland and Scotland should join the Irish Republic together. That would solve all the problems at once: Protestants and Catholics would be at roughly the same numbers in the New Ireland – none of them could subdue the other. Nobody would have to start an application procedure to the European Union, as Ireland could claim similarity of its extension to Germany‘s. No additional seat needed in the Council of the European Union, only some additional MEPs. And no border in the Irish Sea! Even the Tories could be happy: Without Irish nor Scots, they keep their majority in Westminster :-)

Malte

05/22

“I used to believe several things about the 21st century that Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and Donald Trump’s election in 2016 have shown me are false. I assumed:

[1] Nationalism is disappearing.

I expected globalization would blur borders, create economic interdependence among nations and regions and extend a modern consumer and artistic culture worldwide.

I was wrong. Both Putin and Trump have exploited xenophobic nationalism to build their power. (Putin’s aggression has also ignited an inspiring patriotism in Ukraine.)

[2] Nations can no longer control what their citizens know.

I assumed that emerging digital technologies, including the internet, would make it impossible to control worldwide flows of information and knowledge. Tyrants could no longer keep their people in the dark or hoodwink them with propaganda.

Wrong again. Trump filled the media with lies, as has Putin. Putin has also cut off Russian citizens from the truth about what’s occurring in Ukraine.

[3] Advanced nations will no longer war over geographic territory.

I thought that in the ‘new economy’, land was becoming less valuable than technological knowhow and innovation. Competition among nations would therefore be over the development of cutting-edge inventions.

I was only partly right. While skills and innovation are critical, land still provides access to critical raw materials and buffers against potential foreign aggressors.

[4] Major nuclear powers will never risk war against each other because of the certainty of “mutually assured destruction”.

I bought the conventional wisdom that nuclear war was unthinkable.

I fear I was wrong. Putin is now resorting to dangerous nuclear brinksmanship.

[5] Civilization will never again be held hostage by crazy isolated men with the power to wreak havoc.

I assumed this was a phenomenon of the 20th century and that 21st-century governments, even totalitarian ones, would constrain tyrants.

Trump and Putin have convinced me I was mistaken.

[6] Advances in warfare, such as cyber-warfare and precision weapons, will minimize civilian casualties.

I was persuaded by specialists in defense strategy that it no longer made sense for sophisticated powers to target civilians.

Utterly wrong. Civilian casualties in Ukraine are mounting.

[7] Democracy is inevitable.

I formed this belief in the early 1990s, when the Soviet Union had imploded and China was still poor. It seemed to me that totalitarian regimes didn’t stand a chance in the new technologically driven, globalized world. Sure, petty dictatorships would remain in some retrograde regions of the world. But modernity came with democracy, and democracy with modernity.

Both Trump and Putin have shown how wrong I was on this, too.

Meanwhile, Ukrainians are showing that Trump’s and Putin’s efforts to turn back the clock on the 21st century can only be addressed with a democracy powerful enough to counteract autocrats like them.

They are also displaying with inspiring clarity that democracy cannot be taken for granted. Democracy is not a spectator sport. It’s not what governments do. Democracy is what people do.

Ukrainians are reminding us that democracy survives only if people are willing to sacrifice for it. … You may have to knock on hundreds of doors to get out the vote. Or organize thousands to make your voices heard. And stand up against the powerful who don’t want your voices heard. You may have to fight a war to protect democracy from those who would destroy it.

The people of Ukraine are also reminding us that democracy is the single most important legacy we have inherited from previous generations who strengthened it and who risked their lives to preserve it. It will be the most significant legacy we leave to future generations – unless we allow it to be suppressed by those who fear it, or we become too complacent to care.

Putin and Trump have convinced me I was wrong about how far we had come in the 21st century. Technology, globalization and modern systems of governance haven’t altered the ways of tyranny. But I, like millions of others around the world, have been inspired by the Ukrainian people – who are reteaching us lessons we once knew.”

aus: Robert Reich: Putin and Trump have convinced me: I was wrong about the 21st century, The Guardian online, 13.3.22, im Internet.

03/22

“If I don’t say them, it will put me in an even more dangerous situation. But if I say them, change may occur. To speak is better than not to speak: if everyone spoke, this society would have transformed itself long ago. Change happens when every citizen says what he or she wants to say; one person’s silence exposes another to danger.”

aus: Ai Weiwei: 1000 years of joys and sorrows. London: Bodley Head 2021, S.264.

Abb.: Ai Weiwei: Remembering. She lived happily in this world for seven years. 2009, im Internet.

03/22