« Six Zeroes: Welcome to the Big Leagues | Main | SPIEGEL: The (Disgusting) Legend Continues... »


Heading: Why Peter Pilz is challenging the terminator

SPIEGEL ONLINE - 23. Januar 2005, 17:03
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,338200,00.html
Pass-Streit um Schwarzenegger

Warum Peter Pilz den Terminator herausfordert

Ein Abgeordneter der österreichischen Grünen wirbt dafür, Arnold Schwarzenegger die Staatsbürgerschaft seines Geburtslandes abzuerkennen. Der kalifornische Gouverneur sei dieser Ehre nach einer jüngsten Entscheidung nicht mehr würdig.

Wien - Der Politiker Peter Pilz, Gründungsmitglied der Grünen in Österreich, begründete seine Forderung damit, dass Schwarzenegger am Mittwoch die Hinrichtung eines wegen Doppelmordes verurteilten US-Bürgers zuließ. Der Gouverneur hatte ein Gnadengesuch des 61-Jährigen abgelehnt. Es war die erste Hinrichtung in Kalifornien seit drei Jahren.

Der in Thal bei Graz geborene Schwarzenegger, der nach seiner Emigration in die USA als Action-Star Weltruhm erlangte und 2003 zum Gouverneur des Staates Kalifornien gewählt wurde, verfügt über eine Doppelstaatsbürgerschaft.

Pilz: Das war ein Verstoß gegen österreichisches Recht

Pilz vertrat vor Journalisten in Wien die Ansicht, Schwarzenegger sei der österreichischen Staatsbürgerschaft nicht mehr würdig. Indem er die Hinrichtung zuließ, habe er gegen österreichisches Recht verstoßen. Schwarzenegger habe das Ansehen des Landes massiv geschädigt.

Pilz hat das Innenministerium in Wien formell darum ersucht, gegen Schwarzenegger ein Verfahren zur Aberkennung der Staatsbürgerschaft einzuleiten. Schwarzenegger sei wahrscheinlich der prominenteste im Ausland lebende Österreicher und präge das Bild seines Heimatlands, sagte der Nationalratsabgeordnete. Er wolle nicht, dass das Bild von jemandem geprägt werde, der Staatsmord verübe. Dies vertrage sich nicht mit der politischen Kultur Österreichs.

In Österreich ist die Todesstrafe abgeschafft. Nach der Hinrichtung in Kalifornien hatten mehrere Menschen vor der US-Botschaft in Wien demonstriert.

"SPON typically puts up a token Broder article once a month or so in a weak attempt to convince the German public that they are actually fair and objective"

LOL this has been the Guardians claim for a long time. A token article to convince its readers that its anti-America and anti-Israel tirade is actually a "balanced view".

OT, via Dailypundit, watch this Iraqi election ad.

They're getting it. Won't see this mentioned on German TV, but maybe FoxNews will.


...Judy Bachrach hat vollkommen recht, wenn sie dem Präsidenten auf "Fox News" die 40 Millionen Dollar-Party um die Ohren haut, während sich in Bagdad amerikanische Soldaten vor Angst übergeben müssen, bevor sie in ihren kaum gepanzerten Fahrzeugen auf Streife gehen...


Broder can't be so pro-American if he supports Bachrach's critic

This Fox "scandal" thing gets even better if one compares the treatment of "Rathergate" to it.

First, criticism of the memos was portrayed as evil right-wing assault on the media, then it was said that truth could probably never be found out, at the end some short pieces hidden somewehere in SPON's backyards admitted that the memos were bogus and that was it. The recently released CBS report and the ousting of four CBS employees was worth one paragraph - but only in the English SPON version, so that the average German reader runs no risk of having his firm belief in the "pro-Bush US media" shaken.

"Rathergate" was a massive journalistic scandal, leading even liberal journalists to debate media bias. This Fox "scandal" was a (very) short-lived talking point on DU and "Daily Kos" and nothing more, and even most liberals saw no "scandal" whatsoever. Wondering why they don't publish similar stories from LGF or others at SPON!?

Thanks for printing the full interview, she really doesnt waste a second getting her 2 cents in! But I am dying to know .... what were the fashion no-nos at the ceremony? Was Stormin´ Norman Schwarzkopf there to give viewers the fashion tips? How did FOX manage to continue the analysis without this genius there?

Perhaps someone should point out to Vanity Fair that Bush- bashing is SOOOOOOOoooooooooo 2003! Get with the times Bachrach!

@ Scuderia Austria

Why does Austria continue to attempt to annoy the USA in such little pathetic ways? Did Austria not ban USA fighter jets use of its airspace in the run up to the Iraq war? I think so. If Austria does take away Arnie´s citizenship then does that mean he can become a full blown American citizen? If he is then could he in theory run for President in 2008? Yeah that will teach him, I bet he will be gutted. HA

HEADLINE: Ray D. is able to determine the name of Fox moderator Brigitte Quinn, which SPON failed to do (as far as I could determine). Of course, why should SPON bother, since Fox News just propagates "Kriegspropaganda" as I have seen German reporters spew in the German news?

And why should we be surprised that SPON assigns such importance to the views of a fashion reporter? After all, the entire German media has been been enthralled by the murder of the German "fashion tsar" and colorful character (schräger Vogel) Rudolph Moshammer of Munich (http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,338129,00.html).

To tell the truth, I don't really know a damn thing about Moshammer, but according to the media reports he was in many respects a decent person. If someone knows more they will certainly add it in a comment. What fascinates me about the intensity of the coverage - and it has been intense - is that Moshammer, as a fashion mogul, was a symbol of the capitalist consumer society that the Leftists and their media usually detest. But that is just the start. It turns out that Moshammer was murdered by an Iraqi. So here we have the German media mourning over someone murdered by a brutal Iraqi murderer, but when Iraqi citizens and US troops are murdered by Iraqi terrorists who are no better, it seems like the German media can't wait to mock the victims. Was Moshammer's murderer an "insurgent" who was fighting for freedom from evil capitalism? Hell no! Likewise, the "insurgents" in Iraq are nothing but low-down dirty murderers, just like the murderer of Moshammer.

C'mon SPON! How about treating the other victims like the heros they are?

@Doughnut Boy Andy
You are right on with your "balanced view" comment. I am reminded of an article Spiegel printed many months ago that ridiculed many of the 9/11 conspiracy theories that are still popular in Europe. I remember thinking that they should apply the lessons of the article to their own reporting.

Thinking about it, Bachrach seems with her poor badly equipped troops moan to be referring to another media fake. Wasnt this dealt with ages ago and only popped up recently again when a "reporter" paid some troops to ask Rumsfeld some made up questions in the form of equipment complaints at a press conference during one of his many trips to Iraq? Perhaps someone has some info on this as I dont remember the facts of this exactly. I may have read it on one of the soldier´s blogs as I seem to remember an angry response complaining that he had had proper equipment for months at the time the questions were posed.

As for the CBS Memogate scandal I have yet to meet a single person here in Germany who has heard of it, or the Vietnam Veterans´ campaign against Kerry´s dubious war record. Funny that. I cant imagine why. But I have heard a few strange stories about voting machines in Florida and possible recounts in Ohio!

NFL is on here on pay TV and its either broadcast via CBS or FOX. If you switch the commentary to english then you´ll hear that FOX always takes the time to say hello and thanks to the troops stationed in Iraq and Germany. I dont remember CBS doing that. Tonight its on FOX. "It´s Good!"


The worst about the Guardian is that it actually sells itself as a "blanced view" Grrrrrrrr I dont know about the Spiegel´s marketing strategy but that would be just as BS if they pretend to be balanced too.

"So here we have the German media mourning over someone murdered by a brutal Iraqi murderer, but when Iraqi citizens and US troops are murdered by Iraqi terrorists who are no better, it seems like the German media can't wait to mock the victims. Was Moshammer's murderer an "insurgent" who was fighting for freedom from evil capitalism? Hell no! Likewise, the "insurgents" in Iraq are nothing but low-down dirty murderers, just like the murderer of Moshammer."

The Moshammer murder had absolutely nothing to do with politics, Islam etc. It's ridiculous to compare it to the Iraq war.

Ref Arnie, if Austria removed his citizenship it would make no difference (most likely even to Arnold) - the requirement isn't no other citizenship, it's "native born" (personally I don't agree with that - "people should be able to vote for whoever they want" - Ronald Reagan).

I'm confused over the money issue. We have enough money for Iraq. We have enough money for the tsunami victims. We could maybe use more boots over there (both places) but more money wouldn't solve that problem. Even in WWII money wasn;t the biggest of problems.

So when was money a problem and how does that fit into money spent on an inauguration? Let's use Roosevelt again, and his 1933 inauguration, "fit for a king". This at a time when unemployment was over 20%, millions were losing their homes, farmers losing their farms, and there were bread lines on nearly every city block.

Now THAT was when one could justifiably say money spent on an inauguration was a waste.

@Doughnut Boy, ref the Rumsfeld/reporter/armor question thing:
The soldier wasn;t paid, as I read it he was assinged to escort the reporter - obviously he wasn't too bright, or he wouldn't have been given a crappy job like that. The reporter asked him to ask the question and being stupid, the soldier did it.

I don't remember the exact numbers but at the time it was something like out of 804 vehicles, 784 had already been up-armored. The remaining 20 were in the motor pool having that work done.

The only reason the reporter was so concerned about armor was because he was concerned that HIS vehicle wouldn't be an up-armored one. I don't know what made him worry about that, maybe his last ride had been in a non-up-armored vehicle, or maybe the armored vehicles were being used for military operations rather than for the press (which would make sense to me).

“pro-American Henryk Broder article”:
Tragically, even Ray D. seems to be inadvertently succumbing to the ubiquitous anti-Americanism, when an article seems to be “pro-American” just because isn’t fundamentally anti-American. ;-) I would say “almost neutral” at best.
Tragischerweise scheint sogar Ray D. ungewollt den allgegenwärtigen Anti-Amerikanismus verfallen, wenn ein Artikel „pro-amerikanisch“ scheint nur weil es nicht grundsätzlich anti-amerikanisch ist. (-; Ich würde sagen bestenfalls „fast neutral“.

Dear Scuderia Austria
By the same logic, Governor Schwarzenegger should get a speeding ticket from the Austrian police because he drove faster than 50 km/h in the City of Sacramento California, and “That was an infringement of Austrian law”.
Nach der gleiche Logik, sollte Governor Schwarzenegger eine Strafzettel von der österreichischen Polizei bekommen weil er schneller als 50 km/h in der Ortschaft von Sacramento California gefahren ist, und „Das war ein Verstoß gegen österreichisches Recht“.

@ ""

Thanks for the info. So its true that the Bachrach wasnt even making fair criticism based on fact, although that wasnt her job or an appropriate time even if it was based on fact. This is spin of spin of spin.

Nope, the argument is coherent and has less to do with the war than with the differentiated reaction of the German media to murder, and the irony of the situation.

Every time European moonbats trash talk my president and my favorite source for news, Fox News, both of their popularity go up. So here is a memo to the tinfoil-cap wearing "journalists" (quotes are appropiate, since authenticity is still pending) at Der Spiegel: Keep up the good work!

@Doughnut Boy - that was me, I had twice in a row and my name just didn't show up (two in a row maybe did that).

Yes, it's Spin City. I don't think the reporter had any concern for fact, just concern over his (hers?) own butt.

A reporter being uninformed isn;t surprising to me, the soldier apparently having no idea if he'd even been riding around in armored vehicles is more of a concern.

But like I said, there was most likely a good reason to assign him to that reporter-lackey job. I did 20 years in the US Army and when a crap job like that shows up the first question isn't "who is best for the job?", it's "who would we like to get rid of for a while?".

Dear constructive Medienkritiker,

I like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Peter Pilz's statements about Governor Schwarzenegger are shocking and appalling.

@ Jay

Thanks for the infos. It is difficult to say as I remember at the time that Rumsfeld was under a bit of fire and so its perhaps fair to be a bit suspicious of stuff like that, after all the reporter didnt have to have Rumsfeld asked to deal with that sort of problem... but I dont remember exactly and dont have the experience you do.

"when a crap job like that shows up the first question isn't "who is best for the job?", it's "who would we like to get rid of for a while?""

LOL so the military isnt so different from other jobs in some repects then! Though after some of the recent stunts that reporters have pulled I bet that this policy might be changing fast, especially as the battle in the media seems to be increasingly important.

Rumsfeld was under fire for two reasons. One was the armor thing (which was untrue) and the other was his saying something like "we go to war with the army we have, not the army we'd like". The press blew that up somehow into his being flip and not caring. Makes no sense to me, since it's true and doesn't say anything different than things I heard in the army such as "The army is always prepared to fight the last war".

No army ever has been or ever will be perfectly prepared for an upcoming war, life just doesn't work that way.

I found this beautiful piece on a blog I visit regularly and thought I'd have to share it with you.

====It's occured to me that lately politics have taken a real turn for the worst in tempo. One of the paritcular problems seems to me to be the absolute hysteria, a problem especially prevelant on the left. It substitutes a rational debate for mindless screaming points and thereby unnecessarily alarms otherwise reasonable people.====

It's not a recent phenomenom; I've sat and watched it grow for almost twenty years now. It started off when President Reagan was in office but was fairly mild back then - but even so, it was enough to earn several people Presidential rebukes "We can disagree without being disagreeable". From personal observation I would say that the real spiral downwards started in 1992 and the arrival of the Clinton Adminstration. Whatever their other faults and virtues (and they did have both), the junior staffers and lower-level appointees brought with them a cult of deliberate incivility. It wasn't just that they were unaware of polite behavior or how to behave when on official business, they went out of their way to be deliberately offensive to everybody they disagreed with. One junior staffer (for example) told the then CJS "I don't speak to people in uniform". It was considered funny to keep senior people from the DoD waiting for several hours. Ideally, such behavior should have been ignored until the perpetrators grew out of it. A few years before, it probably would have been but in 1994 there was a big influx of hill newbies- almost all Republicans. When treated with deliberate rudeness, they responded in kind. Things spiralled downhill from there.

A big contributor to the declining standards inside the Beltway is the acceptance of foul language. When I was first working down there, it was unheard-off for somebody to use profanity in public. Everybody involved in discussions kept a civil tongue in their heads or they weren't involved in those discussions any more. Again, that died out with the arrival of the Clinton administration - its staffers took great delight in using obscenities and profanity as part of the daily run of things. There were a lot of reasons why that was a bad thing but one of them was that it removed a danger signal. In the old days, if somebody started to use foul language, it was an indicator that there was a real, serious, problem and that things had better be delayed until the issue was explored in more depth. Now, with extreme foul language being used routinely, that safety catch has been removed. Another factor - it is impossible to have reasonable discussions in an environment where foul language is accepted.

====Am I alone in thinking that this hysterics don't bode well for the Democrats fortunes? I know that their stunning defeat cuts them out of the loop pretty badly but they can still do more than simply give in with a token effort. Rather than believe the rhetoric can't they make it a point of doing what they can establish a real agenda? Or will it be more gloom and doom?====

I think the Democrats have been monumentally idiotic and, unles they can reform themselves and reform themselves fast, they have destroyed their party. It is an unfortunate fact (for them) that they have to appeal to a large moderate center if they are going to win an election. At the moment, their approach is "You are stupid idiot and are too moronic to understand how clever we are. Now vote for us." The democrat dominated websites are packed with such presentations. They are probably the best recruiting aids the Republicans have. My guess is that if the Democrats carry on the way they are, 2006 will see further gains by the Republicans in both Houses on the Hill. That's not a unique assessment by the way. In Washington, there are a lot of politician-Democrats who can see what is happening and understand the party has a death-wish. The problem is that they can't do anything about it.

If we look at the current political situation in context, something quite remarkable has come out. The current Republican leadership would (in a tactical and strategic sense) get along very well with Mao Zedong and Vo Nguyen Giap. They've run a perfect rural insurgency and isolated the cities. The situation has a lot in common with Vietnam in 1953 - the insurgents (then the Viet Minh and now the Republicans) have built on dissatisfaction with the ruling power structure and constructed a broad church to which most of their target audience can take part even if they don't quite feel comfortable about it. The "elites" (then the French, now the Democrats) are blind to what is happening and content themselves with screaming insults and threshing around ineffectually.

Take the comparison a bit further. At the start of the siege of Dien Bien Phu, General de Castries visited the fortress by way of his personal C-46 and with an escort of six F8F Bearcats. He made a lon, stirring speech about how the Viet Minh had no artillery, were too ill-trained and ill-disciplined to launch a proper assault and lacked the skills required to organize a siege. Now, there were several problems with that speech. For more than a month, the Viet Minh had been dropping 120mm mortar and 105mm artillery rounds onto the base at sporadic intervals. ANother was that the Viet Minh had already destroyed several French outposts by assault but the real kicker was that the same evening, the Viet Minh dropped an intense artillery barrage on the base. They took out de Castries's C-46, two of the Bearcats and hit every single French command bunker.

For the Democrats.

Washington = Dien Bien Phu
Republicans = Viet Minh
Sporadic H&I fire = Bush's first term
The lost outposts = Republican gains in the Houses on the Hill
The artillery barrage = The 2004 Presidential elections

oh yes and

General de Castries = John Kerry.

Remember what happened to Dien Bien Phu.


@ Scuderia Austria

Arnold Schwarzenegger is my state's governor. If Arnold is reelected, his signature will appear on my college diploma. How cool is that?!

But in terms of politics, I did not vote for him since he was a a bit to the left for me. But if he does run again, I will vote for him since he has not done anything to piss me off.

Roosevelt was dying in January of 1945. That's why there was no big celebration.

Claus Koch:

"wir, die schreibende Intelligenz Europas, ..."

"Hoffentlich kommt kein Rückfall

Fester Vorsatz, für die nächste Phosphoros-Ausgabe nichts über Amerika und seine Welt-Auftritte zu schreiben. Das ist in den bisherigen Nummern nicht vorgekommen. Nicht, weil es den Lesern erscheinen könnte, das Intelligenzblatt sei doch reichlich fixiert auf dieses Geleise, und habe auch etliches andere versprochen. Bitte um Verständnis: Die ständigen Drohgebärden und Pöbeleien der US-Regierung müssen jedem, der in Europa politisch schreibt, das Blut in die Stirn treiben. Und wenn jetzt in den Feuilletons allzu viele, die noch nie in der Nähe des Problems gesichtet wurden, sich kommentierselig daran zu schaffen machen, so ist dabei oft eine flapsige Achselzuckerei, die einen ärgern muss. Es zeigt sich heute deutlicher als zuvor, dass fast alle, die darüber zu schreiben haben, ihr Amerika-Bild aus den Selbstinterpretationen von Amerikanern gewonnen haben, ob im wohlwollenden oder im kritisierenden Sinne. Eine eigene Anschauung von Amerika und seiner welthistorischen Rolle, wie sie etwa Briten oder Franzosen haben können, haben bei uns die wenigsten. Eine eigenständige politische Publizistik zu Amerika fehlt bei uns ebenso wie eine Haltung der politischen Klasse. Diese politische Leere ist es, die den Autor öfter in das schreckliche Spiel Amerika hineinzieht, als es ihm lieb ist.
Legitim also ist die Suche nach einer Fundamentalkritik durchaus, es geht, in neuer Form, wiederum um Totalitäres. Aber es dient nicht der intellektuellen Hygiene, wenn man vom Totalitären nicht loskommen kann. Da, wie hier schon des öfteren festgestellt, das Imperium einen Finalzustand darstellt und immer auf Untergang zielt, wird es schon jetzt dringlich, über diesen Zustand hinauszukommen. Es wird ja etwas kommen nach dem Ende dieses letzten LEVIATHAN. Und man sollte sich intellektuell und moralisch herantasten an die neuen Formen und Ordnungen der Gewalt. Man sollte sich also zwingen, Amerikas sicheren Untergang nicht allzu interessant zu finden."

"Sie (Habermas und Derrida) können auch nicht mehr Trauer über die Verwüstungen empfinden, die im vergangenen Halbjahrhundert durch amerikanische Macht- und Wirtschaftsorganisation, schliesslich durch amerikanische Kulturdominanz angerichtet worden sind. Trauer aber über die Verluste, die ein amerikanisch geprägter Fortschritt in Europa wohl oder übel ausgelöst hat, bewegt die älteren Europäer, die "Unsere Erneuerung" wünschen."

"Das Imperium, das unentwegt neue Gewaltmittel aufeinander türmt, kann sich in keinem anderen Zustand als dem des Krieges befinden. Und wenn die insularen Amerikaner sich so lange als ausserhalb des Krieges dachten, spätestens seit Bush müssen sie sich in die Vorstellung finden, dass die Pax Americana nicht stetige Friedensverbreitung heissen kann, sondern ständigen Krieg. Die Bush-Doktrin von ihrer Pflicht zur jederzeitigen militärischen Präventive wird nicht mit den Amtsjahren dieses Präsidenten, der in europäischen Augen leicht paranoid erscheint, verlöschen. Die pure Masse an Macht wird auch einen ausgeglicheneren Staatsführer dazu zwingen, für ständige Kriegsbereitschaft zu sorgen und die Söldner-Armeen des Imperiums auf allen Kontinenten zu aktivieren.
Der Status des Imperiums, ein Finalzustand, bedeutet nämlich auch ständige Untergangsbereitschaft und damit jene Angst, die von der eigenen Unvergleichbarkeit bestimmt ist. Mit einem Imperium in diesem Endzustand kann weder die Idee von der Multipolarität konkurrieren noch die Idee einer kosmopolitischen Ordnung auf der Basis des Völkerrechts, wie sie in den Vereinten Nationen angelegt ist - die ihrerseits von der absurden Konstruktion des Sicherheitsrates getragen werden müssen.
Amerika ist nicht zu helfen. Die Kraft seiner Selbstzerstörung ist vehementer als alle heute denkbaren Eindämmungspolitiken eines internationalen Befriedungswillens. So ist auch die verzweifelte Hoffnung von Richard Rorty, die Öffentlichkeiten der Bürger Kerneuropas könnten Amerika vom imperialistischen Weg abbringen, indem sie in erneuerter Identität eine Vorstellung davon gäben, was politisch möglich ist, spes contra spem, Hoffnung wider vernünftige Erwartung. "Ein solches Aufblühen neuer idealistischer Selbstdefinierung würde ein Echo in der ganzen Welt auslösen, in den Vereinigten Staaten und China ebenso wie in Brasilien und Russland" ("Demütigung oder Solidarität" in Süddeutsche Zeitung 31. 5. & 1. 6.)"
6. Ausgabe - 20. Juni 2003

"Die Steuerlosigkeit des unregierbaren Imperiums, das in den Händen der taumelnden amerikanischen Nation ist, ist bereits offenbar. Ebenso wie der heutige Krieg im mittleren Osten sind die kommenden Kriege dort verloren. Amerika kann nicht anders, es wird sich noch in so manchen aussichtlosen Konflikt hineinziehen lassen oder ihn selbst beginnen.
So erging es noch allen Imperien. Die allzu große Übermacht gebiert immer wieder die törichte Tat, die der Befriedung dienen sollte."
39. Ausgabe - Freitag, 12. November 2004


Wenn das die schreibende Intelligenz Europas ist, dann müssen wir auf schreckliche Jahre gefaßt sein. Ist denn die gesamte Elite in die USA ausgewandert?! Das ist schon lange nicht mehr komisch. Deshalb sind diese Texte nicht mehr zum Lachen, sondern zum Abwenden.

Hier schreibt Koch zum Tsunami:

"Dieser zweite Weihnachtstag zeigte schonungslos, auf welche Weise sich die Weltgesellschaft mischt, in obszöner Harmlosigkeit. Wem jetzt noch das Wort "Ferienparadies" über die Lippen kommt, der kann nur ein abgestumpfter Barbar sein. Das Paradies hat sich als ein Ort der Schuld offenbart, wie einst schon in der Bibel. Die apokalyptische Woge zertrümmerte und vermengte wahllos braunes Menschenfleisch und weißes Menschenfleisch. Als sie vorübergegangenen war, wurde soweit möglich wieder getrennt. Das weiße Fleisch, ob tot, verletzt oder heil geblieben, wurde zumeist nach Norden, in die Heimat geflogen. Dort wurde es bereits von den ersten fröhlichen Silvesterböllern empfangen. Das braune Menschenfleisch wurde in die Massengräber geworfen, Kalk darüber, die Bagger decken ein wenig Erde drauf."

"Nach dem elften September vergoss die gesamte zivilisierte Welt Tränen über das geschundene Amerika. Keine zwei Jahre später wurde das verwundete Imperium, das sich von den Terroristen in vormoderne Formen der staatlichen Gewalt hatte ziehen lassen, fast überall so verachtet und gefürchtet wie nie zuvor. Es ist bereits stigmatisiert als der kommende große Verlierer, der sich blindwütig wehrt, um sich nur noch tiefer in den Sumpf zu arbeiten."


Ich habe nur Menschen gesehen, Überlebende und Tote. In Deutschland leben viele Hautfarben. Die dt. Regierung hat Menschen zurücktransportet, meist Deutsche, die Hautfarbe spielte keine Rolle. Diese Gedanken sind widerlich.

The comments to this entry are closed.


The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

April 2023

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29