GER politics thread

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Well, since it is now clear, again, that Islam cannot be the problem, we have nothing to talk about any further.

Correction, Islam cannot be the problem, what people do (ie commit crimes) can (and is) a problem.

Or that the people can (and do) do something (ie commit crimes) because the rule of law is broken by positive descrimination.

Morever while prosecuting people on the basis of their religion (or ideology) is wrong (because they have a right to freedom of thought and conscience), you can and should descriminate against groups (ie muslims) in your crime prevention/crime investigation work (ie for incitement of violence) based on the objective statistics (ie that muslims are more likely to incite violence than christians) while presuming innocence of an individual untill it is proven otherwise with due process in the court of law.

[Catfish]

How do you want to threaten or better prevent people from crimes with penalties early enough, when even death is not a threat for them? They kill themselves, and are not interested in anything happening after this.

Those who do the assassinations cannot be prosecuted before they kill others and committed the crime. So what to do?

What some propose is to take all others in hostage, giving out the message like we kill your family if you do something wrong. Somehow this cannot be the answer, and even then some of the radicalised people will still think it does not matter for their 'martyrdom'.

As Ikalugin said, we should not fall in the trap of acting like them. Keping calm and carrying on will probably really be the answer in the long run, since when people are not interested in the terrorists they will die out. Maybe..

So what would you propose to do instead? Act like the Nazis and condemn muslims, like they did with the jews?

Originally Posted by Catfish

As Ikalugin said, do not fall in the trap of acting like them.

Excuse me?

I do not want to cut anyone's head off, or want to blow myself up - for whatever reason.
All I want is to live my life in peace, or is it unreasonable to want that?

So don't tell me I am like them, just because I want to protect myself from what seeks my destruction.

Originally Posted by Catfish

So what would you propose to do instead? Act like the Nazis and condemn muslims, like they did with the jews?

Apples and Oranges.
Jews were no threat to Germans, or anyone, and also not to Germany, at no time whatsoever, nor do their beliefs demand to kill others. They lived their lives and that was it.
Muslims follow a radical ideology that commands to destroy what we today call "the west", its values, its false Gods and beliefs, demands the killing of gay people, the abuse of Women and to conquer what is not under Islamic rule yet.

As I said. Apples and Oranges.

[ikalugin]

I do not want to cut anyone's head off, or want to blow myself up - for whatever reason.

You appear call for thought policing and prosecuting on the basis of ideology they are a part of, not the crimes individual members of that ideology commit.

Muslims follow a radical ideology that commands to destroy what we today call "the west", its values, its false Gods and beliefs, demands the killing of gay people, the abuse of Women and to conquer what is not under Islamic rule yet.

Which doesnt make the carriers of that ideology criminals as long as they do not break the law by doing all those things or incite others to do it.

On the other hand what you can and probably should do (in addition to restoring the rule of law) is to restrict entry of those people into the country by introducing additional checks but base those instruments not on the ideology (islam) but on the crimes that individuals affiliated with it may commit.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Sounds very anti liberal.

Confronting and defendign against totalitarianism and its expressive ideology is as much anti-liberal as it made me a violent thug when I defended myself against a junky drawing a knife and trying to slit my throat all of a sudden.

Freedom of throught and conscience.

Your freedom ends where you start to take away my freedom in favour of yours. My tolerance ends where the other does not meet it with reciprocity.

---

Defending yourself against a crime, does not make yourself a criminal. Confronting a totalitarian aggressive ideology that pushes you all the time, does not make you an aggressive totalitarian person yourself. Using force to fight off him who attacks you, does not justify to accuse you that you are not better than him becasue he forces you to use force yourself in defence against him.

This kind of relativism is an offence to so many victims that one cannot count them all. In the end, it denies the right of self-defence.

Originally Posted by Skybird

This kind of relativism is an offence to so many victims that one cannot count them all. In the end, it denies the right of self-defence.

Well said.

[ikalugin]

Defending yourself against a crime, does not make yourself a criminal. Confronting a totalitarian aggressive ideology that pushes you all the time, does not make you an aggressive totalitarian person yourself. Using force to fight off him who attacks you, does not justify to accuse you that you are not better than him becasue he forces you to use force yourself in defence against him.

Basically we can separate this discussion into two separate points.

First of all, the one where we have common basis. If an individual commits a crime (for example murder, rape, incitement of violence), state must prosecute him in accordance to the law regardless of who he is (for example muslim). If an individual is a member of a group that is most likely to commit a crime (ie a newly arrived male muslim "refugee") then the law enforement efforts should be more focused on him (for example in terms of crime prevention, crime investigation, etc), however that individual should not be prosecuted by the state unless found guilty of a crime by the court of law, with due process.

Secondly, the one where we differ substantially. Upholding any ideology or belief by an individual is not a crime in itself, only specific action by that individual (murder, rape, incitement of violence) or inaction (when this is proscribed by law) is.

Prosecuting against an individual on the basis of an ideology or belief said individual holds, however horrible that ideology belief may be, provided said person did not commit crimes via action or inaction, is in my opinion an act of opression and violates individual rights and de-facto is an act of thought policing.
Thus any policy that does so is, in my opinion, is both against the common good and immoral.

This kind of relativism is an offence to so many victims that one cannot count them all. In the end, it denies the right of self-defence.

Actually it does not deny the right to self defense, it denies agression without cause.

[Skybird]

I hold a Stalinist responsible for the Stalinist ideology he upholds. I hold a Scientologist responsible for the ideology he upholds. I hold a voter responsible for the election vote he casts. I hold a militant nationalist responsible for the nationalistic ideology he upholds. I hold a Nazi responsible for the ideology he upholds.

Why should I make an exception for the Islamic ideology that a Muhammeddan upholds?

It does not matter whether that person is actively or silently supporting the claim of Islam, or just helps it by white-washing it and glossing over it. Like it did not matter whether every single German back then indeed had strnagled a Jew with hois own hand, and indeed was a Nazi by the book or not. Nazism nevertheless was - rightfully - associated with the Germany of that time. It makes no sense to claim that Nazism was no problem of the Germans. It was a problem of the Germans, and Germany. Even of the polite, the friendly, the law-obeying Germans.

So it is with Islam as well. You uphold it, no mmatter whether by conviction or just by mere, unknowing word - I hold you responsible for that, due to the content of that ideology. You claim to be Muslims? Walk away and leave my hiome country, or change yourself. Accepting you I never will. Because that ideology's content is what it is.

[Skybird]

An addon for the above post. In German.

https://www.welt.de/debatte/kommenta...hleichend.html

[Skybird]

And this story, again in German, is about how political correctness and dilletantism of the defence ministress destroys the moral and spirit in the Bundeswehr.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutsc...a-1152274.html

Many defence ministers in germany of the past have not been good ones. But van der Leyen, Emanzenpüppi as I call her, is by far the worst I can remember. And she has no clue of military matter. None. Rien. Zero. Nada. The army deeply mistrusts her, and I think dispises her, and she has no clue of the army.

[Skybird]

Muslims demonstrated against terror in Cologne yesterday. Expected were 10 tousand, actually just 3 thousand came. The DITIB, an organisation controlled by the Turkish govenrment, refused to join, so did another of the major Muslim lobby groups.

http://www.dw.com/en/lower-than-expe...gne/a-39294162

However, one has to ask some questions on whether the demonstration really was "a sign against terrorism" and a call for Islam to clean itself from its violent heritage and to critivcally reflect on it sown violent seed, or was just a welcomed opportunity to once again claim that "Islam has nothing to do with it". Self-victimization, and rejecting any responsibility of the Quran for the over 200 passages where it calls for violence against and supression of infidels, were the real intention behind it, most likely.

http://www.emma.de/artikel/warum-die...gen-ist-334519

Necla Kelek, the author,

is a German sociologist with Turkish-Cherkessian roots and with special reputation for Islamic society and Islam. She is known to ask critical questions that are politically not opportune and are not wanted to be heard, thats why she is often confronted, ignored, defamed and kept away from discussion - although she is one of Germany's leading experts on Islam. Its just that she is about real Islam, not the wanted cuddly illusion that politically is wanted to be mistaken for Islam. She points out that one of the main supporters of that demonstration is a leading scholar of a town that is a centre of Salafism in germany, a town that saw two dozen IS recruits leaving for Syria and Iraq, five of which were students of this scholar. She says: "Like the Nazis belonged to Germany, so do terrrorists belong to the Ummah, and Islamism belongs to Islam."

Ooops - has she a direct wire into my brain? I am saying the very same.

[Skybird]

Why the modern Germany again is so mercilessly collectively oriented, which makes German mentality extremely vulnerable for totalitarianism, enforced collectivism, willing to allow paternalistic infantilizing by a strong centralized nanny state, and in general time and again falls for a strong Führer (or VerFührerin).

http://www.achgut.com/artikel/demokr...ssverstaendnis

The text is an excerpt from the book "Mal eben kurz die Welt retten - Die Deutschen zwischen Größenwahn und Selbstverleugnung."

In no other country in the world there is such a strong club-mentality and do so many clubs and associations exist, like in Germany. In no other country (not even the Asian countries which are assoiacted with strong collectivistic mindsets so easily) you will find such a big share of the general population beign organised in clubs and associations.

And in no other country of the West you find the educqaiton sector and the media sector being so overwhelmingly infiltrated by left-leaning ideologists.

This is why Germans stare in disbelief at individualists (=egoists!) daring to do their own thing and not caring for the crowd. this is why Germans find the idea that Trump could be elected as president, and the Britons voting for Brexit, unimaginable. Germans have transformed totalitarian collectivism of the past into something new, or better, they dressed it in new clothes: they now call it "consensus", and they believe that the state-ordered consensus goal is "without alternative". Here it helps that Merkel has managed to render all political differentiations between parties pointless. Germany today in principle is a socialist one-party-state like the GDR was. The pluralism the state-sponsored and state-nursed left-leaning journalistic claquers stand ready to point at all too willingly, the severla parties there are in the Bundestag that give them food for their daily talk shows and witty comments in newspapers: are just deception, strawman, alibi. They mean nothing. The diversity is Potemkian diversity.

Which is okay for the German's mentality, as long as he is not excluded form the running pack of dogs. And so, in case of doubts or danger of being accused of having a different opinion, he choses to again howl with the dog pack.

We have had two socialist dictatorships in a row over here. And this is where it has led us. Lessons learned: none.

---

On a sidenote, the German Lieutenant-Colonel from that story I linked to some days ago, two posts above, has filed charges against the German defence ministress, apparently for character assassination. Its the first time ever I think that a German defence minister or ministress gets sued by a high ranking German military officer.

---

Finally, Schultz has called the Bundestag for legalizing same-sex marriages, in a bit to get these clients' votes. Merkel immediately and without any scrupels withdrew from positions the CDU had held for decades, and allowed the vote to be individual (which, Big Mama, is just what the constitution says anyway, not only is there no constitutional basis for parties' claim and demand that politicians have to vote in accordance with party policy - the constitution even explicitly says that it cannot be like that at all: article 38, paragraph 1). Again, the only principle of Merkelianism has shown in her ruthless acting free of any moral values and ethical hindrances: the principle of that there never shall be principles allowed to come in her way, and that no principles shall ever be allowed to stand between her and power. Opportunism in its purest form.

[Catfish]

insert *swearword* here.

I have to agree for a third time. Unbelievable.

[Skybird]

I merkelized you. My opinion is without alternative. Mcgyver you out of this, if you can.

Originally Posted by Catfish

insert *swearword* here.

I have to agree for a third time. Unbelievable.

Really?
That surprises me.


How are the Germans in regards of "club mentality" any different from the British, or Americans, or whoever? I'd really like to see data to back this rather silly claim up. From my POV, it isn't like that at all.

This is completely normal, and the purpose of all these activities is hardly "I am a pack animal, I need to submit", and surely does it not have anything to do with politics.
Where are the parallels?

I think you the author reads too much into this.