GER politics thread

[Skybird]

A TV documentary on the inherent and growing anti-semitism in Western societies and Islam, that was paid for by ARTE and WDR, is being boycotted by state TV.

In German.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleto...-15044790.html

Perfectly revealing the underhanded, cheating Zeitgeist that is blindly pro Islam and anti Jews, and hides antisemitism under new labels to dodge criticism.

No further comment by me needed. The story speaks for itself.

[ValoWay]

I vaguely remember that the americans believed after WW2 that 'prussia' was the root of all evil in germany. I think they were trying to take steps to delete prussia from german history but never actually went through with it.

I'm confident you guys know what I believe to have heard there?

[Skybird]

Yes. Destroying any sense of national identity, or fundament for it, so that Germany never could become a strong central state again. This was a design goal demanded by the Americans for the surrogate constitution of the post-war West German federal republic: to have a strong federal structure so that the states could always play foul on the national government, and so the two sides prevent each other to form a strong nationality - and nationalism - again: chancelory and minister presidents are set up against each other, not together with each other. At least that was the idea. Not even many Germans know why the constitution and the federal structure of the German state is what it is.

But its true, the basic structure was enforced by America, with the goal to keep the new German state weak, both in administration, and psyche.

I wonder if later this was regretted on Americna side.

However, there have been serious clashes between German and American administrations in the past before, Merkle and Trump are not a first, not at all.

Lyndon B. Johnson demanded Ludwig Erhard to send German combat troops to Vietnam, which made the Germans furious opponents of the American position in Vietnam and really flipped their switches to the anti-US position, Johnson found the safest way to bring the Germans up against him, it ended with a grumbling "compromise" of a single German hospital ship getting sent instead of troops.

Nixon never trusted Brand with his Eastern diplomacy, both men had utmost antipathy for each other.

With Carter and Schmidt they say it was even worse, Carter hated Schmidt's arrogance, and Schmidt, a fighting war veteran, disliked Carter's weakness and lack of determination - first the German resisted the American plan to build the neutron bomb, and when Schmidt finally gave up diplomatic resistence to it, Carter changed his mind and made Schmidt facing an utmost unpleasant situation with his opposition in Germany, later Schmidt had to fight against the Americans again to convince them to station Pershing-2s and Cruise Missiles in Germany in reply to the Sovjet stationing of SS-20s: while the German population hated the idea and strictly opposed it, Schmidt took it very queer that he had to fight against his own people and the Americans as well, although this time the American govenment complied. - I was at highschool at that time, so it was the first of these pplitical events that I actually witnessed first hand and have memories of - and we live din West-Berlin at that time, where anti-American dmeonstraitons were especially intense and lead to many clashes between students and police in the streets. It was the time when the Greens and the so-called Alternative Liste - militant squatters, communists and anarchists - formed up, especially in Berlin. Both groups later became one party.

And then there was Bush junior and Schroeder, Bush said the German promised him that Germany would be with him in Iraq if only the war would be clean, short and determined, while Schroeder always denied that claim by Bush and indeed already on his return from his visit in Germany and since then for always strictly opposed the Iraq war.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by ValoWay

I vaguely remember that the americans believed after WW2 that 'prussia' was the root of all evil in germany. I think they were trying to take steps to delete prussia from german history but never actually went through with it.

I'm confident you guys know what I believe to have heard there?

True after WW1 anyway, they thought of Prussia as "the evil". Which is, b.t.w., complete bovine scatology. "Prussia" had not been one state though, but a patchwork of different smaller patches of land, alot of them belonging to polish kings of the time. Prussia then had an army alright, but if you compare the armies of the time Prussia's was much more "liberal" and enligthened, than others of the time. Prussia's kings (Friedrich1 and 2 or 'Frederick') of the time were also much more modern than kings of other countries.

Friedrich Wilhelm I. certainly forged a new army type, and gave lots of money for that. But despite the arms build-up he only fought one war, together with Denmark and Saxony, against Karl XII from Sweden. Tolerance and freedom of religion, the first health care, freedom of taxes, money, free places and free material for to build houses to help immigrants getting a new home, numerous other examples.

Maybe the US were just afraid that could plant new ideas in the heads of their people.

Good article in german: http://www.planet-wissen.de/geschich...hte_preussens/

[skidman]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Perfectly revealing the underhanded, cheating Zeitgeist that is blindly pro Islam and anti Jews, and hides antisemitism under new labels to dodge criticism.

You must be living in a different country. Anti islam and anti muslim attitude have become mainstream in Germany in the last few years while antisemitism is restricted to the right and left wing extremists. Take this for reference: In my hometown a new synagogue and a new mosque were to be built. Absolutely no protest against the synagogue, but lots of disgusting racist action at the construction site of the mosque.

To suggest, antisemitism is not adequately addressed in German state-run media is one of your typical oversimplifications.

No further comment by me needed.

A promise? Too good to be true.

[Skybird]

Yesterday I read a brief note in a paper that the first german bank has started to charge its customers a penalty interest if the customer do not use their creditline. The charge is then on the maximum of the creditline.

Again: you have to pay interest if you do not take the credit.



You read that right. No joke.

It may be just a regional small bank. But still, if you consider this as well as the total rape of reason and logic behind misleadingly so-called "negative interests" : Does it need any more hints how totally insane and rotten and broken the money system has become? What money? There is no oney worth the name. What we use and wrongly think of as money, is notes of debts without material securities.

Stealing and plundering, nothing else it is. Stealing and plundering. And the politicians help in that as best as they can, and become incredibly creative in hiding this behind meaningless newly invented terms and phrases. Criminal scum. Its all a mafia syndicate.

In the same essay I read that the global total debt is around 365% of the total global GDP. - If it does not get further explained, "debt" usually mean explicit debts only. But there are also the inherent debts, which usually are multiple factors higher: pensions to be paid in the future for staff hired today, interests for credits to be taken in the future in order to pay the interests of the debts there already are, and so forth. So, I assume, and that would be more in line with what I have learned over the years in the past, the actual debts on the globe probably are much higher than just 365% of the global GDP.

You can bet your life on it: no politician in the world plans to seriously tackle this. It is completely out of control. FUBAR.

Originally Posted by skidman

Absolutely no protest against the synagogue, but lots of disgusting racist action at the construction site of the mosque.

You're saying this as if this behavior is unjustified.
Remind me.
How many synagogues have to be searched by police units due to religious motivated terror attacks committed by jews?
How many rabbis do they arrest because they preach about killing unbelievers?
How many synagogues can be connected to being safe houses or recruitment centers for terrorists?

And how often do the examples above apply to mosques?


So again: Why is the behavior you've mentioned unreasonable or "disgusting"?
I sure do not want some hate-center next to me that preaches anti-western propaganda or worse.

Give me a hundred synagogues any day, please!

[ikalugin]

How many synagogues have to be searched by police units due to religious motivated terror attacks committed by jews?

To be fair while this may not have been a threat in recent history, brits did have issues pre creation of the state of Israel.

And in the end - muslims would continue practicing their religion even if you don't allow mosque constrution.

My two cents - the better way to lower the rate of extremism may be to not ban mosque construction per say (because that would push muslims to the prayer houses that you have even less control over) but to regulate how they are run, say via a moderate state backed councill which would burn the radicals at the stake so to speak.

Originally Posted by ikalugin

To be fair while this may not have been a threat in recent history, brits did have issues pre creation of the state of Israel.

And in the end - muslims would continue practicing their religion even if you don't allow mosque constrution.

My two cents - the better way to lower the rate of extremism may be to not ban mosque construction per say (because that would push muslims to the prayer houses that you have even less control over) but to regulate how they are run, say via a moderate state backed councill which would burn the radicals at the stake so to speak.

I agree and this is, well, they "act" as if they'd try to do that, but in the end our politicians don't dare to question the mantra that "Islam means peace".
Yesterday, in German TV, some show started with the question (the question!) if "Islam has a problem with violence", AFTER saying "terror attacks nearly every week".

That is the problem. People being cowards.


Of course, if it would be up to me, there would be no Mosques anymore, no Minaret, no Muezzin and surely no Muslims until this ideology goes through a severe reform (which can and will never happen, we all know this).

Until then, I do not see why I would be expected to "tolerate" Islam, though.
If so, I ask why we cannot tolerate Nazism?
Oh right, radical ideology and all that...

[ikalugin]

Of course, if it would be up to me, there would be no Mosques anymore, no Minaret, no Muezzin and surely no Muslims until this ideology goes through a severe reform (which can and will never happen, we all know this).

Sounds very anti liberal.

Until then, I do not see why I would be expected to "tolerate" Islam, though.
If so, I ask why we cannot tolerate Nazism?
Oh right, radical ideology and all that...

Freedom of throught and conscience.

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Sounds very anti liberal.

Am I "a liberal"?
Also, to me it sounds sane and just. And reasonable considering the consequences of not getting rid of it. Just wait... it's going to happen.

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Freedom of throught and conscience.

Tell me, what is freedom of thought and conscience worth in, let's say...
Iran?
Saudi Arabia?
Nearly every Muslim country?


You cannot have any of these when you "tolerate" an ideology that seeks the destruction of these values.

[ikalugin]

Tell me, what is freedom of thought and conscience worth in, let's say...
Iran?
Saudi Arabia?
Nearly every Muslim country?

And this doesnt matter.

You cannot have any of these when you "tolerate" an ideology that seeks the destruction of these values.

You can and you should, as your freedom of thought and consience depends on your acceptance of those rights of others.

Which means that you cannot prosecute people on the basis of what their ideology is or what they think, only if they break the law through action (or inaction when specified) for example by violating the right of other's to life via murder. Because if you do, those values and rights you have are destroyed by yourself.

Originally Posted by ikalugin

And this doesnt matter.

Don't be cheap.
Yes it matters.
Otherwise explain why it does not.

Originally Posted by ikalugin

You can and you should, as your freedom of thought and consience depend on your acceptance of those rights of others.

Which means that you cannot prosecute people on the basis of what their ideology is or what they think, only if they break the law through action (or inaction when specified) for example by violating the right of other's to life via murder.

"Rights"?
Islam has nothing to do with rights, it has everything to do with taking away rights, especially those of Women, gay people or whoever doesn't fit their radical views.


You're basically saying I must not stand up against someone threatening me with a gun. It won't help us, our values or societies, if we tolerate what seeks to destroy us. This would be nonsensical, as we can see all over the world.

What more do you need?

[ikalugin]

It won't help us, our values or societies, if we tolerate what seeks to destroy us.

If you do not you are destoyed. However to explain my point of view in German context.

To me it appears that the core of the problem (that Germany has) is not in that Islam is bad, but in that the people practicing Islam receive positive descrimination by the state (ie not prosecuting muslims equally and fairly for the crimes they have commited, ie illegal imigration), to avoid accusations of negative descimination and thus keep the state feeling good about it's morality.

Thus introducing negative descrimination specifically against the muslims would not solve the problem, because the problem is not the Islam but the fact that muslims get special treatment and thus undermine the rule of law and introducing the negative discrimination would do the same, as people would be prosecuted not for what they did but for what they are.

Hence in my opinion the solution would be to resume the rule of law and prosecute people for crimes they commit and not for ideology they are a part of. The list of such potential crimes can be lengthy, in this context apart from the obvious crimes against an individual (murder, rape etc) one has to add the crimes against the society at large and the state (illegal imigration, incitement of violence etc).

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