[Skybird]

Again this ^ drivel?

Originally Posted by Catfish

While Skybird's rants contain some truth, there are hundreds of decisions that are/were not negative, or bad. It always depends on the point of view. But as we all here do, Skybird picks out some bad ones and only comments on those, since ranting is much more fun. But i really can't bear the cant of how bad it all is, the sky will fall, a.s.o. anymore, it's becoming boring.

We all know from what political direction you are coming from, even if you deny it: not the fineprint on the poster but the music makes the concert, and that puts your comments into perspective.

While i also think that Merkel should go, i do not think that all her decisons were bad, not even 10 percent. Experts even today say that the opening of the borders in 2015 were not a bad idea.

"Experts"...? Save me. There have been "experts" claiming right the opposite, btw.

Regarding international law and humanitarian concerns it was the only thing to do.

Wrong on both accounts. Plus the constitution unconditionally obligates any government, no matter the party, to protect German borders. Nobody had the guts to claim repsonsibility for this decisiopon, for the German public at that time would have crucified any cabinet member doing so. And has Merkel not m ade it a motto now that emotions and sentiments shall trump law and order and treaties? Well, she has for sure.



You just want that foreigners from other continents have any right for the fruits of Germans' labour without having ever contributed to it themselves, and most of these strangers never will contribute in net effect to it, but will take more from the social system than they pay back into it. We will pay dearly for this self-delusion. It will be a heavy bill. A very heavy bill, in money, and in further destruction of Germany'S cultura and social fundaments. The left will have big and loud parties in the rubble.

That nationalists and xenophobes oppose that – who would have thunk?
I wonder what the right wing agenda will be when they cannot beat the dead horse of hostility towards foreigners anymore.

Yes, for lefties like you everybody opposing the expropriation of German wealth and private property, and opposing the politically correct rejecton of Germans having first right over their own land, is a nationalist and xenophobe. An islamophobe and a paranoid. A Nazi and a racist. A mentally derranged and soul-sick nuthead who must be cured. Or burned, socially assassinated and silenced. Jaddajaddajadda...

I take it that some just need a war and their life being diretcly threatened, nothing to eat, no perspectives, having to flee from a war perpetrated on their land by countries far away, to recognize that they do not really have it bad at all now, here, and today. Not compared to other times (read: the past), nor to certain other countries.
Wailing and whining on a very high level of personal freedom and property.

How many millions do you want to take in, catfish? 40 millions? 60 millions? More? Can all be done, there is that immense demand to migrate into the promised lands of Europe for sure, especially Germany. "We can afford it".



The now debated UN migration "pact" has dynamite in it that the TV state media desperately try to hide since long: it claims that every migration-willing man has a "human right" to freely choose where he wants to live. But I doubt that refugees from the war in Jemen will just be satisfied with living in Egypt or Somalia if they get told they have a claim for Germany instead. And what now gets forumalted as a test ballon and thus in form of "non-bionding" declarations, will be turned into treaty and law soon in the gfuture - it make sno sense to decvlare non-binding rules if you have ni intetion whatever to turn them into bidnign rules.



Nopbody can have a right whatsoever to force and press himself into an existing community of established members and demand that them now have to get along with him and have to integrate him, no matter whwether they want him or not. Because that would be a violation of profound human rights of the mebers of said communities. No man can have claim for somebody else. A migrant can ask for poerkimnssiuon to travel over land somebody else owns, and he can ask to be allowed to stay - and the land owner has any right yone could imagine to say Yes or No, freely. Only this way it can work. Everything else is enforced colonization and land-taking-by-force.



The Dalai Lama, certainly not suspicious to be a warmonger or racist or xenophobe, some months ago said that the Europeans should not act stupid while being helpful: that they should strictly differ between migrants and de factor war refugees indeed, and that war refugees have no claim whatever to be allowed to stay for the rest of their life: that they must return for sure once the war in their home country is over. He also said that migrants must ask, but have no right to demand. That is the original meaning of asylum: it means not constant residence, which would be either migration or colonization (depending on the willingness of the newcomers to either integrate, or not to integrate but expecting that the new country has to adapt to them instead), but asylum means being given shelter only for as long as the war situation lasts. He also said that instead they should be trained and educated while they stay temporarily, and then be send back: so that they can help to rebuild their countries that without their citizens returning and helping never woukd get rebvuld at all: becasue nobody would be there doing it. Or is that somethign that the Germans also should do, during summer holidays, maybe?



Needless to say, there are no coinvincing mechanisms in place that regulate the moving baclk fo for exmaple Syrian migrnats and refugees to Syria once he war there indeed has toned down. And Assad said that he does not want certain people back.



When you help somebody on the street who broke down, and you give first aid and medical help and call an ambulance, he has no claim that from now on you have to care for him and service him for the rest of his life. When a stranger knocks on your door and demands to live in one of your rooms from now on, forever, he has no moral or legal basis to demand that, you can and probbaly should give him the boot. When you share your cart with somebody and let hiom drive with yoiu on the seat besiode you, he does not beome co-owner of your car. He is a guest only - and you have all right there is to expect to leave again sooner or later.



Giving exotic strangers all for nothing all citizen rights and material benefits and allow them in while they have no claim at all for this our land which was made what it is by OUR hands work and that of our forefathers, while these newcomers had nothing to do with it, and if you enforce that upon the native population, you commit a crime against most profound human rights: that of owning private property, also the right to form communities with your likes thjat are not necessarily open to each and everybody. From this right for private property comes the right of a people to own the land it lives on, and worked on and with it. The act of work makes an unclaimed habitat or piece of natrure "your land". But for lefties, this idea that nobody owns anything but everybody owns everybody else, probably holds a strong attraction.


You see the assumed nobleness in the stranger, and you give your own people the boot. Nice guy. But many of these people are neither refugees, nor are they any more noble than we are. In fact, many of them are anything but noble, but are barbarian, primitive, are infested with racist ideas due to their socialisation, and hostility towards women, Jews, Christians, homosexuals, and they despise and always will despise the values that our own - ours, not theirs! - culture here in the west were build on. Many of them do not come to contribute, to fit in, to integrate, but come with the intention to explicitly abuse our studpity, and to reject any integration effort by themselves, while seeing us as prey, and expecting us to integrate to them.



Oh you lefties. You financially live by the national conception of our wellfare states that you try to deconstruct so mercilessly, and want the pearls that allow you your luxurious living to be thrown before the swines instead. The darkest dirthole on the dark side of the moon is more precious and noble in your eyes, than your own people and home nation, and not one evil in the world for which you do not declare the white man to be responsible for. Its all our fault. Always. Forever.



Boring I am, you say? Your really have no idea how boring you underhanded lefties have become for sure meanwhile, eh?



No wonder that so-called populists, may they be real populists or just claimed ones, get voted everywhere around. They are YOUR creation, dear lefties. Because they promise to be the only chance to ever get rid of YOU. I think you have nothing learned from the past couple of years. Socialism is not the solution: beside monopolism, its one of the two root deseases.



---


And here I offer you once again a deal, a thought experiment that I offered you before already, months ago:



You gave no reply back then. Here is my deal: I am ready to accept as many migrants into germany as there are self-sustaining, German/native households that:


1. completely voluntarily accept to house one migrant per household;

2. that finance themselves completely and are sel.fsustaining, and do not live on state wellfare and would not fall into wellfare if they take one migrant;
3. and that sign an affidavit of support (= rechtlich bindende Bürgschaft) and accept to be held fully responsible for any failures, costs, crimes committed, problems, arising from the migrant they house. The household owners will be held fully responsible for all costs and legal troubles and follow-on consequences. Thats what a "Vollbürgschaft" is about.



Would you accept this? Would you respect the human rights of the Germans and their freedom, and the principle of voluntary solidarity that can but must not be given by the individual household owner who fulfills the three conditions above?



Or would you insist that the state must enforce what people do not want, and must lorry in many more foreigners than the Germans want to house and come up for, just so that you can see your moral worldviews being pushed through, no matter what?


I am a frustrated but still: reasonable man, and my offer is free of any imperialism, paternalism, it respects the rights and the freedoms of the Germans and leaves the chance that migrants - although in finite numbers, can come in, maybe even still in greater numbers than I like. Still you could have this deal with me, easily. Different to you, I respect the individual decision making of the individual person, I only insist that his or her decisions must not be paid for by anyone else than himself, and that he does not cherry-pick or leaves the bills and the responsibility to others who must come up for it. Just those three conditions must be met: and I do not even demand that Muslim migrants, that by definition of what Islam is MUST be against our values, should be excluded. I do not even discriminate between mirgants and refugees. I am willing to let in one migrant per household that fulfills the above three conditions. I only demand that those who arrived since Merkel violated the border in 2015, get calculated into the formula.



I think we both know that this offer, under these conditions that ground on the principles of liberalism (in the European understanding of the term, not the American), the cultural tradition of humanism, and the profound human rights of freedom and owning private property (you see, Germans also have human rights, not just the foreigners coming...) , would not be good enough for you. You would want to enforce much much more, and if this is done by using force against the german people, or the European peoples, by abusing the state's so-called monopole of power, so be it. Tyranny and abuse and manipulation is absolutely okay if it serves the left's worldview. And since the white man is always guilty of anything anyway, and any historically grown feeling of culture and identity that discriminates us from others must be destroyed anyhow, this serves us just right. The left calls this bollocks "justice" and "responsibility".