taz: AfD-Frontmann Alexander Gauland findet, dass die zwölf Jahre Weltkrieg „unsere Identität heute nicht mehr“ betreffen. In der selben Rede sagt er aber, dass wir das Recht hätten, „stolz zu sein auf die Leistungen deutscher Soldaten in zwei Weltkriegen“. Erklären Sie uns bitte diese Dialektik.
Küppersbusch: Nee, fragen sie Martin Walser, der unter dem Jubel des Nationalfeuilletons „gegen die Dauerpräsentation unserer Schande“ sich wehrte und die „Moralkeule“ des Gedenkens an Auschwitz zurückwies. 1998. Irgendwann musste der Schwurbel ja mal beim rechten Empfänger landen. Für ein Land, dass 400 Jahre nach dem Dreißigjährigen Krieg noch feine Spuren dieser Katastrophe in sich birgt – ist es schon verdammt mutig, 70 Jahre nach einem Epochenverbrechen nach der Tagesordnung zu fuchteln. Gauland hat was von einem Kindermörder, der nach sechs Monaten Haft wegen Diskriminierung klagt.
„We don’t know what we want or who we are; we don’t really have values and beliefs of our own; what we have instead is an instinct to copy and compare. We are homo mimeticus. ‘Man is the creature who does not know what to desire, and who turns to others in order to make up his mind. We desire what others desire because we imitate their desires.’ Look around, ye petty, and compare. The reason Thiel latched onto Facebook with such alacrity was that he saw in it for the first time a business that was Girardian to its core: built on people’s deep need to copy. ‘Facebook first spread by word of mouth, and it’s about word of mouth, so it’s doubly mimetic,’ Thiel said. ‘Social media proved to be more important than it looked, because it’s about our natures.’ We are keen to be seen as we want to be seen, and Facebook is the most popular tool humanity has ever had with which to do that.
The view of human nature implied by these ideas is pretty dark. If all people want to do is go and look at other people so that they can compare themselves to them and copy what they want – if that is the final, deepest truth about humanity and its motivations – then Facebook doesn’t really have to take too much trouble over humanity’s welfare, since all the bad things that happen to us are things we are doing to ourselves. For all the corporate uplift of its mission statement, Facebook is a company whose essential premise is misanthropic. It is perhaps for that reason that Facebook, more than any other company of its size, has a thread of malignity running through its story.“
Brené Brown erforscht zwischenmenschliche Verbindungen – unsere Fähigkeit für Empathie, Zugehörigkeit, Liebe. In einem ergreifenden, aber auch lustigen Vortrag bei TEDxHouston offenbart sie Einblicke in ihre Forschung, die sie auf eine persönliche Reise schickte, sich selbst besser kennenzulernen und auch den Menschen ein Stück weit besser zu verstehen.
„We’re supposed to believe that Trump’s support stems from economic stagnation or dislocation. Maybe some of it does. But what Trump offers his followers are not economic remedies — his proposals change daily. What he offers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence. His incoherent and contradictory utterances have one thing in common: They provoke and play on feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger. His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of “others” — Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees — whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. His program, such as it is, consists chiefly of promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up.
That this tough-guy, get-mad-and-get-even approach has gained him an increasingly large and enthusiastic following has probably surprised Trump as much as anyone else. Trump himself is simply and quite literally an egomaniac. But the phenomenon he has created and now leads has become something larger than him, and something far more dangerous.“
“We badly want to understand Trump, to grasp him,” David Roberts writes in Vox. “It might give us some sense of control, or at least an ability to predict what he will do next. But what if there’s nothing to understand? What if there is no there there?”