Crazy views

An axiom is a principle that requires no proof. In other words, a supposed truth that is not questioned further. You may remember the word axiom from your school days. Although there are various methods of proof in mathematics and physics, certain things are simply certain. 1 + 1 = 2! That is so. This is considered correct a priori. A priori, i.e. from the outset? That's probably how a philosopher in the epistemology department would put it. I find it interesting that the smartest thinkers in contemporary history have primarily questioned these axioms, which should not be questioned. The fundamentals! Because they did this, their views were considered crazy from the perspective of the time in which they lived. In a literal sense, this is true. Geniuses tend to look at problems from a different angle. They shift the view.

Since Corona at the latest, there have been an infinite number of political axioms in the form of truths with no alternative. The measures resulting from the political axioms must never be questioned, to quote a famous vet. Two further examples? We are talking about the Russian war of aggression, for which Putin alone is to blame. Period. Climate change is man-made. Period. The debate carpet has been laid. The solution to the problem must be discussed on this and no other carpet. If you question the ground, i.e. the starting point of the discussion, you become a denier, a heretic, a witch. You are considered crazy if you leave the ground and lose perspective.

A little-discussed political axiom is the shift to the right. The one in Germany? Yes, that too, but I mean the shift to the right throughout Europe. Oh no! I raise you the shift to the right in the whole world. If you believe the relevant German media, the whole world seems to be shifting to the right and moving closer to fascism. After all, fascism is on the far right of the political map. This is another axiom that should never be questioned, at least in Germany.

"Election in Romania: Historic success for right-wing extremists." [1]

This was the headline on Deutsche Welle about the election winner George Simion, followed by the worrying question "Does a democratic Romania still have a chance?". If you follow the reporting of German gazettes on global elections, you can replace Romania with any other country.

Elections in Germany, France, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Argentina, the USA and so on: historic success for right-wing extremists. Is democracy in danger?

The world is moving to the right. The axiom is clear, this is dangerous and therefore the resulting measures must never be questioned. What measures? Well, you could fight the right-wing parties in question in the media, ban them if necessary, have their political leaders prosecuted by the judiciary and also annul elections and have them repeated. In theory. At least that's what I would do if I firmly believed in the immovable axiom of the dangerous shift to the right. After all, my actions would then serve a good cause. It's just stupid when, as happened in Romania, another right-wing extremist, Simion, wins instead of the right-wing extremist Georgescu, who was prevented from doing so. The population just doesn't seem to learn.

Now I am far from being a genius. I also assume that the sum of one and one is actually two. Nonetheless, I will contrast the carpet thesis of the global shift to the right, which is discussed in every talk show, with an antithesis. I am changing the floor covering.

It is not the world that has moved to the right. The perspective from which the world is viewed has moved to the left. And by a huge margin. Nietzsche already knew that all seeing is perspective. The world does not have to move back to the left. It is high time that the TV cameras moved back to the right of the political center circle and were no longer positioned on the left sidelines preferred by Georg Restle & Co.

There are now dozens of prominent journalists who were once considered left-wing and are now labeled as new right-wing. Matthias Matussek, long-time head of the culture section at Der Spiegel, is one of them, as is taz co-founder Mathias Bröckers. One minute a recognized science editor, the next a conspiracy theorist. Because Bröckers has moved to the right? No. Bröckers is doing what he has done all his life and should be the noblest task of a journalist. He questions political axioms such as the official narrative surrounding 9/11. Mathias Bröckers is not crazy. Only the way he is treated by former colleagues is and has become crazy.

We live in crazy times. I often read that and I confess that the phrase often crosses my lips myself. Problems everywhere you look. How do you deal with it when you're faced with a problem and can't get any further? I try to do it like this. I let some time pass, change my perspective, shift my view of the problem. And yes, sometimes I go crazy, think outside the box. Sometimes I really do have the views of a clown.

This is the title of a famous book by Heinrich Böll, which I read in the spring of my life. In the fall of my life, I am overcome by a crazy thought. In 2025, Böll, who died in 1985, would be defamed by the Heinrich Böll Foundation, which is close to the Green Party, as a neo-rightist. After all, the symbol of the clown symbolizes "racist, transphobic and homophobic content".

At least these are the unalterable views of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution [2, page 71]. That is an established axiom.