{"id":41446,"date":"2026-07-17T19:01:16","date_gmt":"2026-07-17T17:01:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kaizen-blog.org\/?p=41446"},"modified":"2026-07-17T19:09:50","modified_gmt":"2026-07-17T17:09:50","slug":"am-sonntag-ching-chang-chong-am-donnerstag-das-lied-gegen-nazis-gestrichen-das-zdf-in-einer-woche","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kaizen-blog.org\/en\/am-sonntag-ching-chang-chong-am-donnerstag-das-lied-gegen-nazis-gestrichen-das-zdf-in-einer-woche\/","title":{"rendered":"On Sunday it was \"Ching Chang Chong.\" On Thursday they pulled the anti-Nazi song - The ZDF in one week"},"content":{"rendered":"

There was a time when this network put the camera where it mattered. We worked with Frontal, for example, wiring up a warehouse somewhere in central Germany with hidden cameras during the afternoon so that, by evening, the footage that needed to air was on television. Nobody sat around discussing what should be left out. Nobody worried about the feelings of the people being investigated. There was an investigation, there was a broadcast, and arrests followed. Today, we've deliberately distanced ourselves from that network. Anyone looking at the same broadcaster now will find two incidents in a single week that, together, tell the whole story.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Andrea Kiewel<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

On Sunday, Andrea Kiewel held up a Japanese Pok\u00e9mon card on Fernsehgarten, called it Chinese, and said the three syllables that have been used on school playgrounds for decades to mock children who look Asian. \"Ching Chang Chong.\" The fact that the card was Japanese is the least embarrassing part of the story. The debate that followed is far worse. What came afterward is the real issue. One news outlet asked its readers to weigh in, and the responses were exactly what Germany has come to expect. One reader claimed that calling the phrase racist only proved how overly sensitive society has become. According to that response, any opinion that doesn't fit a certain worldview is immediately branded racist, discriminatory, or even far right, every discussion is shut down, and a divide is created between those who supposedly get everything right and everyone else. It called this a terrible development and claimed it was exactly the kind of thing that drives support for the AfD, which, according to the writer, is right to push back against such a ridiculous culture. The writer added that they don't actually vote for the party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That sentence is a small masterpiece of disarming itself. It complains that criticism shuts down debate while, in the very same breath, dismissing the people offering criticism as unreasonable. It accuses others of creating division while planting itself firmly on one side of that very divide. It declares a political party to be right even though that party's platform targets people who look like the very ones mocked by the phrase in question, then quickly adds that it doesn't actually vote for them. Above all, it packages the most comfortable excuse of recent years as an act of courage. The problem isn't racism. The problem is calling it what it is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Danger Dan<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Then came Thursday, and this is where any room for understanding ends. Die Anstalt was preparing its 100th episode. One of the central topics was the growing political radicalization of society and the need for a democracy capable of defending itself. Rapper Danger Dan and pianist Igor Levit had been invited to perform the song Keine Angst together, a song about standing up against right wing extremism. Just before the recording began, the veto came down. According to the broadcaster, the lyrics could be interpreted as a call to violence, and such a call would be in direct conflict with its programming guidelines. The network said the editorial staff had examined the issue extensively, senior management had also been involved, and they had concluded that this conflict could no longer be resolved after a performance lasting more than seven minutes in front of a live audience. Instead, they said they planned to examine the song later in a documentary journalism format somewhere else in their programming.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Read that statement twice. A broadcaster invites an artist to speak about defending democracy, cancels the performance minutes before the recording begins, then announces it will examine the work at some later date. Crimes get examined afterward. Not songs the network invited onto its own stage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So what exactly is in these lyrics that sent senior management into a panic? It's a set of instructions, and a remarkably sober one at that. Call one or two people you trust. Form a group with no name, no founding date, no registered organization. Ask local bars if they'll let you use a room for one evening to organize against Nazis. Put together a small festival. Collect donations. Buy paint and stickers. Research the far right structures in your area. Photograph their meetings. Find out who they are, what they do, where they work, and who they associate with. Open accounts under false names. Document what they write and what they say. Build an archive. And when arguments no longer get through because the other side has retreated completely into its own reality, speak to the people around them instead. The song says this used to be called an outing campaign.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be fair, there is one point that has to be acknowledged. This isn't a church hymn, and that's a good thing. The lyrics speak plainly. They include advice on dealing with the police. Gloves are mentioned, along with the suggestion to leave your phone at home, and the lyrical narrator says they want to be bold and delinquent. Anyone who wants to read the lyrics as a set of instructions can certainly do that, and anyone who feels the need can have them examined in court. But that's not what the broadcaster claimed. It called the song a call to violence, and there is no violence in the lyrics. Gloves are not weapons. An archive doesn't beat anyone to death. The broadcaster chose the strongest accusation German law has available for a piece of music and attached it to lyrics where that accusation simply doesn't exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Democracy neither exists without the ability to defend itself nor comes free<\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

This is where the programming debate ends and the constitutional question begins. Art is free. That's what Article 5 of Germany's Basic Law says, and unlike the paragraph above it dealing with freedom of expression, it contains no limitation based on general laws. Art is allowed to exaggerate. It is allowed to speak in the imperative. A lyrical narrator is not a criminal defendant. Anyone who reads a song as though it were a police report doesn't understand the difference between a work of art and an instruction. Danger Dan called it an attack on freedom of expression and artistic freedom. It is true that no broadcaster can be forced to air a program, but that changes nothing. When a broadcaster invites an artist, schedules the performance, then removes them from the program just minutes before going on air because the lyrics suddenly seem too explicit, it has done far more than make a programming decision. It has denied the public the opportunity to form its own judgment, using money that belongs to that very public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2026 - Any opinion that differs from the accepted worldview is immediately labeled racist or extremist.<\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The broadcaster had those lyrics for weeks. Weeks. It invited the artist, scheduled the performance, brought in the pianist, and built the program around that very topic. Then, just minutes before recording, someone in senior management suddenly decided there might be a problem. To this day, Danger Dan has not received a written explanation. Instead, he and Igor Levit unexpectedly found themselves with a free day in Munich, and they learned about the decision through a promotional agency and an Instagram account, not from the broadcaster itself. Anyone who drags out a decision of this magnitude for weeks and then makes it in the final minutes didn't carefully weigh the issue. They simply hoped it would somehow resolve itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More than 240 years ago, Immanuel Kant described exactly what this is about. Enlightenment, he wrote, is man's emergence from his self imposed immaturity. That immaturity is self imposed not because people lack intelligence, but because they lack the determination and the courage to use their own understanding without someone else directing them. Laziness and cowardice, he said, are the reasons why so many people remain immature their entire lives, even though nature has long since set them free. It is simply so convenient to remain dependent. If someone else is willing to think for you, then you no longer have to think for yourself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n

Pianist Igor Levit and Danger Dan - Members of the Die Anstalt team call the decision to remove Danger Dan cowardly.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

A broadcaster funded by mandatory public broadcasting fees, whose very mission is public enlightenment, chose cowardice twice in the same week. That lays bare the real weakness, and it reaches far beyond one television studio in Mainz. Everyone claims to believe in democracy and freedom, but nobody wants to unlock the box they've locked themselves inside. Ideas are welcome, just don't say them out loud. Freedom is great, as long as somebody else pays the price for it, and as long as it costs nothing. It is the exact same mindset that wrote the reader letter on Sunday and issued the veto on Thursday. Both are saying the very same thing: not me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fact that the 100th episode of a program about defending democracy became the occasion for removing the very idea of defending democracy will probably be dismissed in Mainz as an unfortunate coincidence. It wasn't. You cannot have a conversation about defending democracy while refusing to defend it. The defining moment is when an editorial team says: this airs, and afterward we'll have the debate. That was the moment the broadcaster chose to avoid, even though its lawyers and senior management had weeks to prepare for it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The price won't be paid in Mainz. It will be paid by the people who have no television slot, no legal department standing behind them, and who continue documenting exactly the kinds of structures the ZDF now considers too controversial even to describe. They photograph meetings they were never invited to attend. They keep records on people who resent them for doing it and occasionally make that resentment known. They do it without public broadcasting fees and without an executive board protecting them. When things become dangerous, there is no other program waiting to give them a platform. In the United States, enlightenment, the defense of democracy, and investigative reporting have become increasingly dangerous for those still willing to do them, and what is being tested there is already sitting on Europe's table as an offer. Anyone who believes this has nothing to do with us has slept through the past several months and failed to understand what is happening in the United States. They keep working anyway. The song will be released tonight regardless, and it will reach more people than the program ever could.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That leaves one final question: what has become of this broadcaster? The warehouse in central Germany is still there. The cables could still be laid. The cameras still work. What is missing is exactly what Kant described, and he wrote it down back in 1784.<\/p>\n\n\n\n