The aim of this thesis is to investigate how Bahamas, a magazine belonging to the antideutsche current in German left-wing politics, acted during a two year period between the summer 2001 and 2003. When explaining the anti-deutsche phenomena and the editors’ politics it is common to take the currents own history-writing as a fact, thus presenting the development of the current as a reaction to outside factors and impulses outside. In this thesis it is stressed that the editors are far from only passively reacting, rather the opposite is true. I claim that the editors have a fixed ideology that they strive to implant in to certain parts of the radical left. This thesis hypothesizes that the editors do this through something that I call ideological intervention. Ideological intervention differs from the common approach, which I call influence, in that it’s focused, timed and directed to achieve as much result as possible. To test the hypothesis, the thesis strives to answer the following questions: When do the editors choose to intervene? Who are they trying to appeal to with these interventions? Who is the target of the editors’ critic and how is it formulated? How is the interventions formulated, is there a pattern?, A jargon? What do they say and what do they not say? The analysis shows that the editors choose to intervene when they think the situation will be as favourable as possible for the intervention. In specific terms this means that they choose to intervene in the context of events that already in themselves bring about attention and discussion. In this way the editors assure that their controversial interventions have the best possibility to spark a controversy and a heated discussion. The interventions are directed to a small segment of the radical left. This segmentmainly identifies itself as anti-fascist and it is interested in theory. They also have some, or a lot of resentment towards the rest of the radical left. The critic the editors formulate mainly directed against the radical left. This implies that the editors are trying to create a rending in the ideological environment that the radical left constitutes. Other phenomena’s that editors direct major critic against is Germany, Nazis and Islam. This critic is, with some exceptions when it comes to Islam, always a critic that appears in relation to the critic of the radical left. In other words, the editors use these phenomena’s to criticize the radical left for its claimed similarities with, and relation to, these phenomena. Things that the editors claim that these phenomena have in common, and that are considered to be negative include collectivism, strive towards equality and anti-global thinking. The texts are written in a unique jargon consisting of a highly academic and philosophic language, often mixed with irrelevant non intellectual arguments based for example on the proposed antagonist mental abilities and personal hygiene. I claim that the jargon is meant to create feelings of exclusiveness among its readers, and thus make them more responsive to the ideology put forward by the editors. In conclusion the analysis supports my hypothesis.