Quite some time ago, this magazine recruited me to report on current German politics. In that capacity, I chronicled the farcical decline of the ill-fated “Ampelkoalition” (“traffic light coalition”) of Social Democrats, Green Party and Liberals, and later the baffling trainwreck of our current Grand Coalition between Christian Democrats and Social Democrats.
But I started to branch out and wrote articles about favourite movie directors and controversial rock albums. This was actually way more fun. But it’s not like there was nothing happening in German politics—far from it! I could have written an endless, breathless stream of articles on the state of Germany and its unhinged political sphere. Nonetheless, I didn’t do so, because I had simply burned out on the subject. A man has a limit, and mine had been reached, especially since nothing ever improves. So I turned to more enjoyable things.
However, now I have been asked to report on an event where politics and the arts intersected. In the worst way possible.
Over a period of three days, from the 13th to the 15th of February, the Thalia theater in Hamburg held the “Prozess gegen Deutschland” (“Trial against Germany”). Instigated by director Milo Rau, a man from Switzerland with a somewhat keen interest in German domestic affairs, this “trial” was neither an actual trial nor a play. Instead several jurists, journalists and other “experts” from public life were invited to give their opinion on a possible ban of the right-of-center AfD, as well as a ban on social media for minors and the threat of an alleged “techno-fascism” of big tech companies.
The “jury” consisted of seven citizens of Hamburg, while the “court” was presided over by former Minister of Justice Herta Däubler-Gmelin, a woman who during her tenure as minister had no qualms in comparing then-US president George W. Bush to, naturally, Hitler. The whole event was livestreamed on the theater’s homepage. Just by reading this, you might get a feeling of what a dreadful slog this must have been.
This “trial” was neither an actual trial nor a play. Instead, several jurists, journalists and other “experts” from public life were invited to give their opinion on a possible ban of the right-of-center AfD.
In total, this pretentious gathering of the fabled “Zivilgesellschaft” (“civil society”) bemoaning the various threats to “Our Democracy” produced nothing much of note. The majority agreed that the AfD is a threat to democracy and should be, if not banned, put under governmental surveillance, whether the party adheres to the Grundgesetz or not.
No one ever brought up the openly socialist Die Linke and whether its own party program would adhere to the Grundgesetz. But the audience were told that the AfD should also be barred from public funding. Other than that, there were long and boring speeches, all to the tune of a grave certainty that “fascism” is on the rise, migrants live under extreme danger and “society” is being torn apart by the “Rechtsrutsch” (slide to the right).
There were two notable moments, though. The first one occurred during a particularly dour speech by the lawyer and migration activist Gabriele Heinecke, advocating a ban of the AfD, during which something unexpected happened. Attending that evening was Feroz Khan, a Pakistani-German YouTuber, popular among the German right. He confronted Heinecke with official statistics concerning violent crimes perpetrated by migrants. Instead of addressing his claims, Heinecke simply dismissed them as (and this is a direct quote) “total bullshit”. But instead of reprimanding the prosecution for its use of obviously inappropriate language, the presiding judge, Däubler-Gmelin, reprimanded Khan, not Heinecke, for simply stating that “this says more about you than about me”. The judge doubled down by saying: “You better treat women respectfully”. How comforting to know that anti-racist German leftists still know how to show brown people their place. The clip has since gone viral.
An episode which attracted far more attention came at the very end of the “trial”, a speech by Harald Martenstein, a well-known columnist with an old-school liberal, mildly conservative bent. For years he wrote for the centre-left weekly magazine Die Zeit, until he left that increasingly “woke” paper for its more centrist competitor, Die Welt. Martenstein’s calmly delivered words hit hard: To compare the AfD to the Nazis is historically illiterate and insulting to the victims of the Third Reich. Banning the AfD would not “save democracy”. On the contrary, it would mean depriving millions of voters of their party of choice, thereby barring them from having their interests heard.
Martenstein cut to the very heart of the politically correct pity party: these concerned citizens were secretly aghast at the fact that an increasingly smaller number of people were inclined to agree with their beliefs. The citizenry was refusing a left-wing hegemony masquerading as “Our Democracy”. As expected, Martenstein drew lots of outrage and criticism from the usual outlets, but, judging by overall reactions in social media, most people agreed.
The citizenry is increasingly refusing a left-wing hegemony masquerading as “Our Democracy”.
Personally, I applaud both Khan and Martenstein for their bravery in speaking their minds against strong opposition. Still, while researching this event, I found myself to be bored. There was nothing surprising about any of this. Even Martenstein, despite the quality of his speech, just repeated the opinions shared by everyone who self-identifies as a centrist. And yet, this strange spectacle pinpointed the very absurdity of current political discourse. These highly educated people, who so adamantly spoke out for their special brand of “democracy” and warned so passionately about “fascism”, are living in a hermetic bubble of irrelevance.
Martenstein, despite the quality of his speech, just repeated the opinions shared by everyone who self-identifies as a centrist.
This is what is really happening in Germany—The country is in its worst recession since WW2. The economy is shrinking; industry is moving away; thousands of jobs are already lost, with no end in sight. Three of the country’s main industries, the automobile, chemical, and medical industries, are struggling severely. Energy prices are soaring, since the Merz administration refused to correct the many wrong decisions of its predecessor regarding nuclear power. The German taxpayer, all the while, is being bled dry by ever-increasing taxation. This is par for the course: someone must pay for an ever-ballooning welfare state, enlarged by only weakly reduced mass migration, which also makes public spaces increasingly dangerous. And if said taxpayer dares to address this mockingly on the “socials”, there is a possibility that the police pay a visit.
I could go on for a long time, but frankly, it is already depressing. The victory of the Green Party in the state elections of Baden-Würtemberg gives me anything but hope for change. All these massive problems are well known and make up most of the daily discourse. Yet these people stage this tacky airing of their personal grievances like everything else is just a minor inconvenience. Or rather: something only the plebs care about.
The “Trial against Germany” was a prime example of a sort of stupidity only highly educated and even intelligent people can possess: ignorance on a higher level. They may have well-trained cognitive abilities, but they are unable to see beyond their own biases, prejudices and, as in the case of “Techno-Fascism”, paranoia, all the while still declaring themselves the beacons of social discourse. At least, that’s what their peers tell them, so it must be true.
Put into crude internet lingo, it’s a circle jerk. A small but telling bit of the event came at its very beginning, when Milo Rau introduced his project. In his speech, he correctly pointed out that the AfD has secured a strong second (sometimes even first) place in the polls, and in some German states it is the most popular party. Now, because of that, according to Mr Rau, the AfD could not be considered the “opposition”. As everyone with a hint of political knowledge can confirm, the AfD is of course part of the opposition, due to fact that the party is not part of the government. The same applies to Die Linke. With that sentence, though, Rau made the true nature of this whole set-up crystal clear: the whole of Germany was put on trial for not conforming to his and his friends’ whims.
The “Trial against Germany” was a prime example for a sort of stupidity only highly educated and even intelligent people can possess, which is exhausted in bias against people who disagree with them.
Far more alarming than the “Trial” was another stage production similar in spirit. The play, Catarina, oder Von der Schönheit, Faschisten zu töten by Tiago Rodrigues (Catarina, or Of the Beauty of Killing Fascists), directed by Mateja Koležnik at the Schauspielhaus Bochum, produced another scandal. In the play, one of the actors, who played an right-extremist politician, gave a monologue full of right-wing talking points. As expected, the audience was outraged, and engaged in heated discussion. But the spontaneous “audience participation” took an unwelcome term, as two members of the audience invaded the stage, with intent to assault the actor. Theater staff had to step in.
The plot of the play revolves around a very peculiar family celebration: A Portuguese family annually commemorates the 1954 killing of labourer Catarina Eufémia at the hands of mercenaries of the then-ruling dictatorship, by killing “a fascist”: what begins as a joyous family gathering ends with a ritual shooting. But there is growing unease among the younger family members, questioning the brutal tradition and the use of violence in fighting for democracy. The play ends with the monologue mentioned above, after which the evil right-winger gets the bullet. So much for “ambiguity”.
It must be said for the director of this production that she at least tries to establish a certain distance from the text. The characters are depicted like members of a sect; the overall directing style is subdued. Clearly, no one had the intention of creating outrage, and the audience was at no point asked to get “involved”. And yet, it happened.
The fault lies with the audience itself, who in a Pavlovian reflex did away with all civil pretence and chose violence when their beliefs were “attacked”. What happened in Bochum was far more symbolic for current-day discourse than the Hamburg snooze-fest.
Leftists, feeling—as opposed to actually being—attacked, have done away with any kind of irony or nuance. Satire is dead. It is now even impossible to simply “act the Nazi”, without the actor having to fear for his health. Banning parties is not enough; no one should be allowed to engage in any kind of “wrongthink”. When defending “Our Democracy”, even violence is apparently an accepted means to an end. Above everything else, this incident shows that nerves are collectively shot. It’s not only the decried “Wutbürger” (angry citizen, a derogatory term for the enraged, yet clueless “right-winger”) who grows increasingly agitated and tense. The same goes for the members of the Zivilgesellschaft, who are seemingly no longer willing to tolerate even the smallest dissent. A society nearing burnout.
The relatively good news about these sorry spectacles is that they ultimately don’t matter. There was no “trial” in Hamburg, just a rather embarrassing act of loudly performed woes. The Thalia theater even set videos of the trial to private on its own YouTube channel. In fact, this “Trial against Germany” was nothing more than another piece in a simply frustrating display. Watching the country’s decline is like watching a car accident in slow motion, but with all the orderliness, precision and adherence to regulations that Germany is so well known for. “The centre cannot hold”, and yet no one who could do anything is willing to do so. It just goes on and on and on.
But, hey, nice to know theaters still exist.
