Germany - The more things stay the same - Interior Minister wants to crush opposition
-
They claim to "fight extremism".
But remember: They support Azov Nazis. RIGHT NOW, today. Actual Nazis - of Ukraine.
https://development.morningstaronline.co.uk/article/germany-announces-new-measures-tackle-far-right
https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1759536722478551207
Interior Minister commented:
“No one who donates to a right-wing party should remain undetected, and - those who mock the state should be confronted by a strong state -.”
Hitler would be so proud!
Remember: Hitler thought himself left-wing & progressive. He called it "National Socialism". He worshipped The State & promoted legal abortion.
To Hitler - in his time & place - "right-wing" was his own opponents like: monarchists (bring back Kaiser Wilhelm), Catholics (papists), & free-market capitalists (Anglo-libertarians).
Hitler aligns 10000% to Interior Minister, Nancy Faeser.
-
It's what's happening throughout the west.
It's not surprising that it's the liberals who are doing this shit.
-
@raphjd So sad..... because "liberal" is supposed to mean "pro liberty" - or - against Nazism, against Statism / the State, against socialism, & against neocon War Machine. All what I am.
When I was young, "liberal" word had prestige. So....... the Nazis, socialists, Statists & warmongers, of course had to take it over / re-brand themselves.
And that's who libs are, today.
-
Liberals gave birth to free speech on college campuses and killed free speech on campuses. It only took about 45 years to complete the cycle.
Strangely, it was born and died at Berkely.
-
The people we call "liberals" today simply write their own press releases. They select their words not based on what would be an accurate descriptor but based on how they want to be perceived. It's all about manipulating the population to go along with their agenda (i.e. propaganda). They're not even shy about it... Their "scholars" (read: ideologues) openly admit that such manipulation is not only excusable by the goodness of their goals, it's also incumbent on any "good person" to do this in order to help steer public opinion in the "right direction".
Just to name a few examples...
"Anti-racism" means racism (and anti-fascism means fascism).
"Gender-affirming care" means "mutilating and sterilizing vulnerable and confused people for profit".
"Welfare" means "we force you to hand over your money so we can redistribute it to those we deem more deserving", because who wouldn't want more welfare? (same goes for "social security")
"Diversity and inclusion" means "less white men and everyone must see things our way".
"Equity" means "discrimination based on immutable characteristics".
"Safe space" means "only those who agree with us are welcome".
"Personal truth" means "an uncontestable falsehood you refuse to stop believing in".
"Green" typically means "more harmful to the environment".And so on... Nearly every buzzword they popularize is used to refer to pretty much the exact opposite of what the word actually means.
If you ask me it's inaccurate to view the group that today calls itself liberals as being the same group that used to fight for freedom, having since gone astray. It's actually the same close-minded group we used to call fascists/racists/intolerant/etc, they've just rebranded themselves to be more appealing. Or to put it another way: they hijacked the good reputation earned by old-school liberals to make themselves seem like the good guys. Not unlike how the modern trans movement piggybacked on the positive public image of the gay rights movement.
-
I agree that groups piggybacked on the liberal banner, but I also see a lot of liberals piggybacking on those other groups.
Democrats were against illegal immigration as late as 2014, but by the end of 2015, they were pro-illegal immigration.
-
@Rapsey-0 Yes libs are ALL about language inversion. Say night is day, purple yellow, etc.
It's their 1 trick - well that & murder.
-
@raphjd Kinda goes to show that the words they use to describe themselves mean nothing. I bet they never even acknowledged that they made a complete 180 on it, or provided a justification or rationale for doing so. They probably just acted like this is what they always believed.
I'm not from the US so my knowledge of its history is limited, but didn't they do the same thing with slavery? I.e. first oppose its abolition, then act like they've always been the ones who fought for the oppressed and the other side were the evil bigots? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
-
@Rapsey-0 said in Germany - The more things stay the same - Interior Minister wants to crush opposition:
I'm not from the US so my knowledge of its history is limited, but didn't they do the same thing with slavery? I.e. first oppose its abolition, then act like they've always been the ones who fought for the oppressed and the other side were the evil bigots? Please correct me if I'm wrong
You are correct that the Democratic Party of the 19th century was pro-slavery. Then for decades, after the Civil War, it was virtually impossible for a Republican to get elected in the South. This all changed in the 1960s when the Democrats championed civil rights and ending Jim Crow laws and segregation. This caused a split in the Democratic party, and for a time, southern democrats rebranded themselves as "Dixiecrats", but eventually just switched to the Republican party because they were more open to racists it would seem. Since then, the Republican party was evolved from being the party of limited government, to an umbrella organization of various "conservative" "Christian" "right-wing" causes.
Your error is that today's Democrats were not born in 1820
-
@jaroonn yeah... except it's same peeps at same race-obsessed shit they always did, keep Blacks on plantation, only this time plantation is drugs & so-called "welfare", crime plague (Defund The Police), DEI, Woke, CRT, replacement by "migrants" & AI.
Oh - and when they do collect endless unpaid labor from downtrodden Blacks, call it "hosting" now. https://community.gaytorrent.ru/topic/64333/with-slavery-banned-wealthy-libs-turn-to-hosting
So they weren't born in 1820 - but may as well.
-
You do know that Robert Byrd was extremely high up in the KKK and was a hero to people like Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and many more. Strom Thurmond is the only "Dixiecrat" of note who switched parties.
Racist Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) who called blacks "weeds that need to be exterminated" was also a hero of Hilary Clinton and most Democrats.
What did Biden, both Clintons and virtually every Democrat call blacks to justify the 1994 Crime bill? Oh, that's right, they called super predators, unsocialized, uncivilized.
Biden said he was against desegregation because he didn't want his kids to go to school in a racial jungle. You might remember that Kamala called him out on that during one of the early DNC Presidential debates. Of course, she forgot about it when he asked her to be his running mate.
-
@raphjd Anecdotes of a few individuals; that is not an argument. You always cherry pick. I am not saying that all Republicans today are racists, but if you are racist, you are probably Republican.
I grew up in the US and most of my family was/is Republican. Don't tell me about racism.
-
In 1994, pretty much every Democrat was a racist. All you have to do is go back and see what they said to justify Biden's crime bill.
Modern "racism" is nothing more than people that don't believe in all the stupid shit leftists claim.
You people believe that blacks are too poor and stupid to get ID to vote. That's racist as fuck.
You people pass a law to stop the need for passing your courses to graduate high school (Oregon did it in 2018 and again in 2023) because you believe non-whites but mostly blacks can't do well in school.
You people pushed for blacks to be taught in Ebonics because you claimed that blacks can't understand proper English.
You people think it's racist to show non-whites but mostly blacks in a bad light in the media.
You people think that it's "anti-racism" to turn white historical figures black.
-
My mom's side of the family were Democrats and most of them were racist and homophobic.
My dad's side were Repubs and were neither.
-
@raphjd said in Germany - The more things stay the same - Interior Minister wants to crush opposition:
In 1994, pretty much every Democrat was a racist.
Right. That's why the vast majority of Black politicians are Democrats. You are consistently wrong about most things.
-
Thanks for sharing your perspective @jaroonn, I find it illuminating.
Since then, the Republican party was evolved from being the party of limited government, to an umbrella organization of various "conservative" "Christian" "right-wing" causes.
Is that not an inevitable thing that happens on both sides? In a two-party system it seems inevitable that each side comprises an alliance of voting blocs. The left seems just as much an amalgamation of strange bedfellows. Now you even have LGBTQ+ people standing shoulder to shoulder with people who believe homosexuality should carry the death penalty.
I do agree that the GOP seems to have moved away from being the party of limited government, but I don't think that's because it has fractured into various right-wing subgroups. In fact, from what I've heard, the people in these subgroups almost unanimously want limited government. I think the problem here is that any organization that exists wants to keep existing (because the people in it don't want to lose their jobs). So the GOP doesn't want to shrink down even though that's what almost all republican voters want.
But leaving aside the motivations of party politicians (who look after their own interests) and the parties themselves (which change over the decades or centuries), there does seem to be some kind of ideological distinction. I've often wondered about this question: what fundamentally distinguishes the left from the right?
So far the two things I have found that appear to be constant across time and cultures are:
- The right looks towards individual freedom and personal agency to solve problems, whereas the left looks towards authority to impose solutions.
- The right favors cold hard truths, whereas the left seems more concerned with optics and embellishment.
Is that latter point something you don't observe at all? I mean... Even the name itself, the "democrats", as if they are somehow more democratic than the opposition. Rather ironic when much of their agenda is explicitly anti-democratic (representing the interests of minorities rather than the interests of the democratic majority, and often at the expense thereof). But it works...
A few months ago a friend confessed to me that the older he got, the more right-leaning he became. He said that in the past he had always considered himself left-wing, because in his mind the left were the good guys and the right were the evil ones.
I asked him why he thought that, even though I already knew the answer, because I had recently asked myself that exact same question.
"Because that's what I was always told."
To me it seems clear that a lot of the support the left gets is not based on whether their arguments are sound, but rather on their public image being presented as "this is who you vote for if you're a good person".
-
No one said that black politicians aren't race baiters and/or idiots.
Let's not for get what Biden said; If you don't know if you are going to vote for me, you ain't black.
In other words, if you leave the plantation, you are an Uncle Tom. Ya gotta pick the DC cotton.
-
@Rapsey-0 said in Germany - The more things stay the same - Interior Minister wants to crush opposition:
Now you even have LGBTQ+ people standing shoulder to shoulder with people who believe homosexuality should carry the death penalty.
You've written a lot, and I appreciate your civility and openness to actual discussion. I'd like to respond to points you've raised individually after some clarification. I'm assuming that the above phrase has something to do with certain members of the LGVTQ+ community supporting Palestinian rights? Is that correct? And if so, do you think that all Muslims believe homosexuals should die? Do you not think that there are Christians who believe the same thing? And more importantly, do you think someone's religious beliefs should determine how they are treated? For example, as a gay person should I think it's ok for a radical Muslim who wishes me harm to be killed along with this entire family and all his neighbors?
Or were you referring to something else?
-
@Rapsey-0 said in Germany - The more things stay the same - Interior Minister wants to crush opposition:
The right favors cold hard truths, whereas the left seems more concerned with optics and embellishment.
What "cold hard truths" are you speaking of? I'm very curious what "facts" the right accept that the left does not?
"Optics and embellishment." Examples please? And are you saying that the right, unlike other poltical movements, is not interested in "optics and embellishment"?
-
@Rapsey-0 said in Germany - The more things stay the same - Interior Minister wants to crush opposition:
The right looks towards individual freedom and personal agency to solve problems, whereas the left looks towards authority to impose solutions.
This is a nice theory, but in practice the right does not have a great track record with individual freedoms unless you would disagree that fascism, nationalism, Putinism, are on the right. I would assert that the more conservative the country is, the more likely there are going to be anti-gay, anti-woman, and anti-minority laws. American conservatives are big on wanting what they consider their rights preserved, but don't seem to mind treading on others'.
