"German multicultural society has failed" - Merkel

[Skybird]

One has to see that in the current situational context. In Germany, we have had a series of book releases in the past months, namely "Das Ende der Geduld" by a judge for youth crimes reporting about the pointlessness of current criminological and legal sanctions against the very intense crime rates and brutality amongst Arab and Turkish juveniles (the judge meanwhile has commited suicide), the debate about former Federal Bank director Thilo Sarrazin's book "Deutschland schafft sich ab" where he fires a full broadside of official federal statistics illustrating that Muslim migratiuon causes Germany more problems than gains, and a general debate about the increasingly growing problem of mobbing, violence and discrimination against German students at public schools with sufficient numbers of Muslim/Araba/Turkish kids so that they can form dominating subgroups and gangs that terrorise German boys and girls and even teachers.

This debate has led to alarming signs of self-censorship that certain political and ideological groups demand in order to "solve" these problems by making it a collective obligation to ignore them and to beautify them. However, it seems a majpoirty of Germans i no longer buying it, having opposed and spoken out against politician's usual habit to nice-talk these porblems, inmstead giving immense support to Islam-critics and migration-critics. You also have to know that different to several other Wetsern nations, Germany alloed un discriminated migration, not selecting in advance what kind of specialists and educated people it could need, and what not. This led to most migrants coming to Germany not becasue they have educational specialisation to offer, but to participate in the enjoying of the benefits and sopcial caretaking of the German social system (statistics show this very clearly.) Sarrazin has won enomous popularity with his book (becoming the best sold non-fictional bestseller in Germany after the war!), and now politicians of the former conservative parties (that has moved massiovely away from conservatism in the Merkel-years in an attempt to win the left voters) see that people threaten to leave them standing alone in the rain. So they now try to gain back a stand in the shift of public opinion by first having chracater-assassinated Sarrazin, which did not work too well, and now leaving him alone and using his statements for their own causes. It is obvious that "multikulti" in Germany has failed with regard to Muslim parallel-societies that have formed up instead of integrating. Whether or not these new slogans by Merkel and Seehofer are something more than just lip-confessions born by mere opportunism, remains to be seen.

That the debate on Muslim migration alreadsy is mixed with a debate oin migration in general, is not helpful. Both groups do not compare, we have no problems with migration in general, only with that fromMuslim countries, namely Araba countries and - dominating - Turkey. Turkey on it'S behalf has understood that the winds are chnaging too. Just two years ago, EWrdoighan has publicly demanded in Cologne that Turks in Germany should stay Turkish and should reject integration, now all of a sudden he and Gül pick new words, saying that Turks should integrate, and now should learn German fluidly and without accent (what two years ago they had called a crime against humanity). They realise that they are in danger of loosing influence, since Germany jast has started at three universities to offer courses to educate and qualiufy German-raised Imams (so far they are being sent in by the Turkish ministry of religion and do not speak German in most cases, nor do they know the country, and Gewrman authorities do not control at all who it is that they are letting in).

That the debate on seeking asylum also is not kept separate from that on Muslim migration and lacking will to integrate in Germany, also is not helpful, nor is it that the political left and the islamophile appeasers once again try to gag the disucssion, and using the rethorical overkill weapon of accusing everybody critical of these things of right-winged extremism, Nazism and racism. What these people want is a German, pro-islamic Jacobin tyranny, regulating strictly what is a,llowed not only to say, but to think. The witch-hunting against Sarrazin has represented such an excess that so far is beyond any example in German history.

70-80% of Germans, so say polls from this year, are strictly against EU-membership of Turkey. One half up to two thirds consider Islam to be a threat and incompatible with the value system of the German constitution.

Europe-wide, there seem to have started a ciounter-movement against the leftistg opinion tyranny of welcoming Islam at all cost, no mmater how high. In several European countries, citizenS initiatives have formed up, forming a front against any more mosqeues and more Muslim migrants. Conservative small parties that are critical of Islam, also some right-.wionged poarties, have scored in national elections and now sit in parliaments. In Holland, meanwhile, the state attorney has skipped all chrages against Geert Wilders, which to rtaise was not his idea anyway, but a rule by a former court's judge who ordered the current trail, overruling a former setence to free Wilders of all the hilarious charges. If the current court follows the state attorney's demand, Wilders will be cleaned of all charges that mistake criticism of a religion with hate crime. On German radio, I heared some useful idiot from some pro-Islamic organisation in Holland already pointing out that freeing Wilders would violate the new EU laws that have been explcitly designed to protect Islam from any form of criticism and questions, and that one would then file a case on the crime of hate speech against Wilders directly at a European court. Actually, this Islamic activist is correct, any Dutch decision to end the Wilders case would villate EU laws indeed - which only shows how inane and totally brain-damaged these EU laws are.

Germany is no racist country, and it is no antri-migration country. A new advertisement over here reads : "our chancellor is female, our foreign minister is gay, our minister of health is Vietnamese". One could add one of our minister presidents is Scottish, and several Turks are holding high offices in the established parties, both on national level and on level of federal states.

I, and most of us, welcome migrants fro other countries - if they are willing to fully integrate instead of sticking to their own cults and habits, and if they have something to offer that our economy needs. We do not welcome people that are unedaucted, do not want to learn and do not want to integrate and instead want to stick with, if not even spread Islam. We need specialised talents. We do not need and can noit afford anymore even more loads of social wellfare-benefitters that represent the social low class even in their own coutnries, and that stay to be that in Germany - at the cost of the community. And that is what the statistics tell us, that is what what differs migrants from China, Japan, Korea, from migrants from Turkey, Albania, Afghanistan. Yes, there are some Turks hwho became successful businessmen and employers. But these example of success and integration and good will towards Germany, are not the rule amongst Turks - they are the rare exception. And that is what is part of the problem.

[SteamWake]

What you dont seem to get is that 'extreme' Muslims do not want to 'intergrate' into whatever culture they are currently in.

In fact quite the opposite they wish for YOU to intergrate into their culture and embrace Sharia law. There is no room for comprimise in their point of view.

[tater]

The PEW study on US Muslims concluded (their headline) that US muslims were "mostly middle class, and mostly mainstream." They were of course completely wrong in the headline. By "mostly mainstream" they apparently decided that if 51%+ of respondents had the "right" (meaning typical American opinion) answer they were therefore mostly mainstream. The problem is that they had only slight majority opinions on ideas where the US population at large has nearly unanimous opinion—like what they think of bin laden, for example. In order to judge vs the population at large, they need a control study that looks at the population at large.

My take is that many do integrate, but many (too many) do not. It would be very useful for INS to study integration as a function of country of origin (since simply using religion is unconstitutional). Religion can be A factor, but not THE factor (same as race may be used as A factor and still avoid quota charges). Look at all immigrants, and set some integration norms. If people from a certain country don't integrate, close immigration from that country, or radically cut the quota, and vet every applicant. In this case you'd be looking for secularists trying to escape their repressive societies, probably.

[Jimbuna]

That was one brave statement to make and one I suspect the majority of German nationals subscribe to.....perhaps replicated throughout most of the western world

[krashkart]

Interesting times ahead.

[Alex]

And France is in the same state. With the exception that no one in here got Merkel's balls (erm) to express his ideas that way.
UTTER shame on our politics.

I wish there was more than the mediterranean/Gibraltar between Africa and western Europe, and more than a few radical countries (when it comes to immigration) between the Middle East and us.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Whether or not these new slogans by Merkel and Seehofer are something more than just lip-confessions born by mere opportunism, remains to be seen.

e****ingxactly!
Wow, Merkel contributes something to a discussion which is going on since years!
Like everything coming from the Merkel-regime her words have to be taken with some kilos of salt. So what does Merkel want, besides the demand that immigrants should learn the language of the country where they live - which is such a minimalistic demand it doesn't even need to be mentioned, it's a matter of course? What are the values which define Germany?
Tada: here's the answer: she is talking about that anyone who doesn't accept the christian conception of man (Menschenbild) has no place in Germany! Go and choke on a broom, Angie!

[Skybird]

Merkel is an intellectual void, and it often seems to me that her past as FDJ propaganda chief secretary overrides her behaviour as a physics scientist by far: many word shells at home to secure her power, little linkup to realities, plus a pathologic craving for unconditional harmony on the international stage to demonstrate that No, Germany still has not become the international rogue again and still is so very very sorry - look how cute and kind we are today. How she just has allowed ONCE AGAIN to get bamboozeled by Sarkozy, still leaves me fuming, and the damage there not only is straight breaking of earlier promises, but represents a damage to the German basic interests that what she accepted there without any realistic, solid compensation, borders high treason. Who needs enemies with leaders like her, giving up our most vital interests, like she does, and repeatedly now - for nothing substantial in return? In the long run, we will transfer additional billions and hundreds of billions (additional to those that we are already doomed to pay), due to her unability to bear diplomatic conflict.

What a zero. I thought Schröder was a bad chancellor. But Merkel easily represents the worst and most naive chancellorship I have experienced in my adult life since my youth years in the 80s. Internationally, her missionary spirit (glorious German example alone should heal the climate and and serve as a model for others of how to mean it well with all and everybody, and don'T we mean it oh so very very well indeed...) and her naivety, is unbelievable.

To think that 5 years ago I hoped that due to her academic background and my conclusion on her sober, rational mindset (hahahahaha...) she might turn out to be compared to Thatcher (not that I'm a fan of Thatcher) - how wrong I was.

One of the already very few occasions when I dared to invest some trust into a politician in advance - the well-deserved penalty once again followed soon after. Moral of the story: one does not invest trust in career politicians - NEVER.

[Penguin]

Sky, what do you mean by giving in to Sakorzy? I can't remember what she did with the dwarf.

Being in strong opposition of atomic power I have seen Merkel as a tool before, at the time she was minister for the environment. Regardless of your stance towards atomic energy, as a minister she managed to screw up a screwed-up law even more - if someone remembers what a cluster**** our deposit laws were and still are today to a certain degree. She already showed her typical behaviour at this time: bowing to the industry, giving a damn about the people whom she is supposed to work for. Hell, even before, as minister for the youth, one could notice how naive and away from reality she was. Reading tip for the german-speakers: an interview with Angela from '94: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/spiege...-52691500.html

Last week I heard the german comedian Volker Pispers talk about Merkel's solution to anything. When adressing any problem she always says: "We must all work together on this!" Extremely funny if you check out any speeches from her: it is really true, always the same sentence with no substance.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Sky, what do you mean by giving in to Sakorzy? I can't remember what she did with the dwarf.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...723937,00.html

Europe's attempt to adopt strict new budget rules to prevent a repeat of the euro debt crisis has suffered a setback because Germany has given in to France on the key issue of imposing automatic sanctions against deficit wrongdoers, German commentators say.


Following talks between France and Germany, EU finance ministers meeting in Luxembourg on Monday agreed on a compromise under which ministers from member states will continue to have a say in whether fines should be imposed -- a level of political involvement that commentators fear could leave the reformed pact almost as toothless as the old one.

Germany had backed a proposal by the European Commission for an automatic process of sanctions to kick in at a certain point if countries persistently exceed the EU's budget deficit ceiling of 3 percent of GDP. France opposed that change, and got its way. In return, France agreed to a medium-term amendment of the EU treaty to allow the bloc to withdraw voting rights from member states that break the rules. But it will take years for the amendment to be agreed and ratified.

That planned amendement is nothing else but just a declaration of intent. An dit will become nothing more than that, becasue it needs a majority for chnaging the European trteaties - those treaties that nobody wants to fiddle wiuth again because last time it took them years and several attempts to et it pushed through.

The French, howebver, since long seek to increase the influence of politics - French politics, that is - on the EU's currency and economy polciies, and the finance markets, that way gainingdominance over these areas that by economic weight they cannot hope to ever acchieve all by themselves.

Merkel got nothing, and Sarkozy got everyting he wanted.

Also, deficit violators will continue to have a say on the sanctions for there offences. That way, the fox again has been put in charge of the henhouse. Who will need to pay for that the most money of all? Right, Germany. Once again Merkel has agreed to let the Euro-union become a pure financial transfer union.

I do not see a realsitic chnce for it bcoming ture, but I wish Germjany would skip this damn Eurpo and leave the currency union, and at best the whole EU as well. It would do damage to German economy, yes., But I think the longrun staying within the EU and the Euro union costs Germany even more - much more. And while currently it seems that Germany has made it better than any other Western nation through the crisis of the past 2 or 3 years, the cost has been high: our budget is highly defiictary (3 years ago we hoped to acchiuece a balanced budget in 2010, mind you), and the state debts have exploded to a level that does not make us trail far behind the US anymore.

Merkel seems to think that Germany still can afford what as a matter of fact already is destroying us. She either overestimates us - or she has no idea of what else to do, that desperate things are.