« Lead? Germany? No, thanks... | Main | The Reality of the European Social Model (Cont'd) »


about the "du bist deutschland" campaign:
i think it's terrible this time and that germany is completely lost
several media firms think that spending 30m€ will start making germany prosperous again...
so it is not the high taxes, the lack of strength for the firms, this *** SOCIALISM...
no, it's the state of spirit. you are einstein, you are dürer, you are goethe. you're german, remember? you're not just anybody...
it's just a problem of perception, after all, isn't it!???

Maybe he did not mention the Free Democrats, because they're not a conservative party. A pro buisness approach alone is not enough to be called conservative. The FDP lacks any sense for patriotism or family values. They support gay marriages and the right to abort unborn children. They're also stronly opposed to mandatory military service and are ( along with the Green Party ) the first to cry out if the civil rights of a terrorist supporter might have been violated.
The FDP is a moderate Libertarian Party, they're important because they're the only party in Germany that is opposed to the ever growing welfare state, but they're not conservative.
If you take pro buisness stance of the Free Democrats and add the traditional values of the bavarian CSU you would get a conservative party.

It´s not only that Bismarck invented the Sozialstaat, it goes way back to the old Germans whose emphasis on solidarity in the community was incorporated into the german judiciary system, alongside with greek and roman elements. No wonder at all, that it was in Germany where communism was founded and that it were Germans who followed the insane ideas of NationalSOZIALISMUS. Even devastating World War II or the breakdown of the Soviet Union couldn´t erase these concepts out of the German "Dickkopf", so what to do about it? It´s not love it or leave it, it´s dare it or flee it!

I don't know where to post this but I need to vent about the media ( al Reuters in this case ) and its coverage of the recent events in Paris

Check out the latest news - interesting what is NOT said

I will add the missing parts in ( CAPS )

"Shots fired as French riots escalate By Paul Carrel
43 minutes ago

Rioters shot at police and fire fighter crews in the worst night of a week of violence in poor ( MUSLIM NORTH AFRICAN IMMIGRANT! ) suburbs that ring Paris, as France's conservative government struggled to quell the unrest.


( MUSLIM ) Youths who rampaged on Wednesday night left a trail of burned cars, buses and shops in nine suburbs north and east of Paris, home to North African ( MUSLIM )and black African minorities frustrated at their failure to get jobs or recognition in French society.

"It's a dramatic situation. It is very serious and we fear that the events could even get worse tonight," said Francis Masanet, secretary general of the UNSA police trade union.

( MUSLIM YOUTHS ) Rioters torched 177 vehicles and attacked a primary school (!) and shopping center, local officials said. Four police officers and two firefighters were hurt, including one with facial burns from a Molotov cocktail.

Prefect Jean-Francois Cordet, the government's top official in the Seine-Saint-Denis region, confirmed shots had been fired at police and fire crews in three separate incidents.

"Four live bullets were fired. Two shots were fired at La Courneuve against police. One shot was fired at Noisy-le-Sec against fire crews, and one shot was fired against a fire crew in Saint-Denis," he told a news conference.


Cordet did not say what sort of weapons had been fired but media said local police recovered shotgun cartridges from the scene at La Courneuve. No one was reported wounded.

Twenty-three people were in custody, he added.

Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, accused by opponents of enflaming passions with his outspoken attacks on the "scum" behind the violence, maintained a conspicuously low profile.


He met Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin for a working lunch but neither man, rivals to lead the right in 2007 presidential elections, spoke out publicly over the escalation in the violence.


At a supermarket in Bobigny's shopping center, staff swept up broken glass and worried about the future.

"If this continues, I'll have to close. Clients are afraid. There's normally lots of people here at this time of the day," said a local cobbler who did not want to be named.

"It's because of the police that this is going on," said one black youth who did not want to be identified. "They are too violent. That's not what their job is."

Governments across Europe have been confronted with violence in deprived ( MUSLIM ) inner city areas, and the unrest in France comes despite Sarkozy's anti-crime drive led in the wake of President Jacques Chirac re-election in 2002, won on law and order issues.

Villepin has struggled to end squabbling within his cabinet over how to handle the disturbances that forced him to cancel a Canada trip.

The ruling Union for a Popular Majority is split between a pro-Sarkozy camp and rivals who support Chirac and Villepin, handing the opposition Socialists a rare chance to beat the conservatives over their much-vaunted record on crime.

"When you see what's gone on over the past three years, when neighborhood police have been dismantled ... I think there's another failure to be noted," Socialist leader Francois Hollande said on French radio.

Sarkozy has scoffed at Socialist attacks, noting crime rose 15 percent during its last 5-year rule. He has sent 2,000 extra police to the areas to help enforce his "zero tolerance" on rioters.

Some leftwing police trade unions have criticized his policies and called for a return of neighborhood police. One police union official described the unrest as a "civil war" and urged Sarkozy to impose a curfew in the affected areas.

The unrest erupted first in the Clichy-sous-Bois after two ( MUSLIM ) teenagers were electrocuted while apparently fleeing police during a local disturbance.

Local prosecutor Francois Molins told reporters police had not been chasing the pair when they clambered into an EDF substation, but he had opened an official probe to further investigate the matter.

(Additional reporting by Kerstin Gehmlich and Jon Boyle)

For millennia, Europeans (mostly successfully) resisted invaders intent on conquering them. Finally, however, they meekly opened the barred door and invited them in. Europeans sympathize with their cause, financially support them, and pooh-pooh their disturbing, inflammatory rhetoric. But a spirit had vanished. The core is hollow. The barbarians snarl among the effete. Thus the fittest survive to write the history of the moribund.

Touts alors, mes amis! C'est moi!

So, is the German press reporting on the French Intifada with sneering disdain about exposed social injustices and racism? Just askin'.

>>Because Germans have been shirking the responsibilities for much of their welfare for nearly two centuries, state dominance is accepted as a given. Germans typically say equality is more important to them than freedom.

Hmmm. Is the Intifada next door generating any second thoughts?

Schadenfreude? Who? Moi?

I've heard a theory. I'm not sure whether I believe it or not. The theory applies to Cuba, but I think it could apply equally well in Germany...

Here's the basis of the theory. Question: Why hasn't Castro been overthrown in Cuba, considering how disasterous his rule has been for the country? Theory: Because the people who would stand up for individual rights, the people who would lead the revolution against Castro, have either been executed or are in Miami (having escaped from Cuba). A similar situation existed in Germany at the end of WWII. Of all of those who might have been American-style conservatives, some were exectuted by the Nazis, or died in the war itself. But others, and it was a significant number, fled to the U.S. before or during the war, and few of those returned to West Germany after the war. (And of course communism/socialism was unopposed in East Germany, where the Soviet puppets were even more ruthlessly efficient at wiping out opposition than was the Soviet government itself.) Add to that the fact that the KGB made a significant propoganda push in West Germany after the war, sending in its agents to pose as leftist intellectuals and rouse the rabble. With no one to speak in opposition, the socialist position carried the day by default. (I'll leave it to others as to what, if any, cultural roots might have been contributing factors.)

Cousin Dave wrote:

Of all of those who might have been American-style conservatives, some were exectuted by the Nazis, or died in the war itself. But others, and it was a significant number, fled to the U.S. before or during the war, and few of those returned to West Germany after the war.

How do you explain Ludwig Erhard and the German Economic Miracle which started in 1948. Erhard pushed through monetary reform and tax reform as well as removing price, allocation, and rationing regulations. Erhard went on to become minister of economic affairs and eventually Chancellor in 1963.

My question, if anyone is still reading this thread: Is Erhard and the economic miracle still discussed in Germany?

@Chuck: By describing the effects of the mid-20th century oil boom on Germany in metaphysical terms such as "miracle", the post-war generation created an opportunity to to praise their own über-vodoo skills to an isolationist audience. It was nice while it worked, but in the long term this label did nothing good: All the next generation had to do is cry "It's all about oil!" and the Ludwig Erhard narrative would fall into pieces. It worked for decades!

This is an article worth thinking about, even when it takes some time.

The Germany expertise of the KGB never made it above the level of a Vladimir Putin who is hardly an intellectual. Instead of qarreling who of the allies was to blame for post-war brainwashing we know today that there was no umerziehung at all. This is not about the Kremlin or the Soviet revolution, it is about the most popular German intellectual in the world before, during and after the communist empire. So popular that even the last kaiser would transfer his most vocal follower into revolutionary Russia. If the situation wasn't so serious one could use the motto: Du bist Karl Marx!

(The German language has different forms of address for personal and business contacts for a good reason. Any campaign for more sovereignty would better respect the separation of the private and the political sphere as it is enshrined into the grammar of personal pronouns, or otherwise it will not be taken serious. How safe would you feel with an insurance company that resorts to pseudo-intimate experimental lyrics about the butterfly effect when it addresses its shareholders? This pathetic "Du bist Deutschland" campaign is so full of Zen that it should hire Yoda the Jedi Master as a mascot.)

Other nations can chose to either revolt with Marx or embrace their intellectual heritage, but in the case of Germany this is one and the same. The conservative dilemma is how can this country take full control of its national heritage without having determined its ways by these in the world who rally around Marx? Without becoming the whore of repentance preachers of the Hugo Chavez type? Without sacrificing private property for a mad potluck dinner as if there was no tomorrow?

Well, this dilemma only occurs in the first place because after the gradual collapse of the aristocrats and the totalitarians, democratic conservatism had to emerge from the vacuum one baby step after another, and try how far it could get with leaving Marx to the Marxists. So there we are. Marx has a great answer, but along the way the Marxists have forgotten what had been the question: How can this culture achieve true sovereignty? What remained was the cultivation of the underdog role by these who had long taken the place of the patriarchs.

Since the kaisers and the princebishops the rise and fall of more and more democratic conservative parties transformed the right so much that today the left is the strongest pillar of continuity and the SPD is the oldest political party with the most entrenched tradition. While before the creation of the welfare state the conservative side had been in the role of the patriarchs, it is now in the underdog role. It has been described as parasites. Locusts. Not as the pharao, but as a threat to the rule of the pharao that is better eliminated soon!

The popular vote is with the left, so the right has to do something before the left can overcome its splits. To get a chance to break out of that dilemma and win back a majority of minds it has to approach the issues from the underdog point of view rather from that of the patriarch, but at the same time must avoid the lack of sovereignty that is the initial point of the underdog role. It must carry enough of its accumulated sovereignty along the dry spell ahead to resist the temptation to punish underdogs or even get rid of them that lures in a conflict against patriarchs posing as underdogs among underdogs. Even though some of the real underdogs themselves are would-be patriarchs that attack the conservative side.

A cradle-to-grave basic income can provide an environment in which that passive underdog has all the time it needs to turn into a sovereign human - but the tragedy of the welfare state is if handouts are not unconditional then it will replace the patriarchs rather than abolishing their role. Flat welfare can help a culture of underdogs without an ideal of sovereignty as its initial point to develop it nevertheless, but any compromise between flat welfare and cold turkey is in contradiction to that ideal. There is no such thing as a somewhat compassionate conservatism. It is either completely or corrupted.

The traditional stopword at this point was, Germany can't pay for it. No, for now it can't. But the constellation of conservatism being in the underdog role towards more or less apocalyptic patriarchs who pose as underdogs is in no way a German sonderweg, it also is the situation of the world. When the Master of all underdog-patriarchs, the ayatollah of Iran, will have to face a United Nations Security Council that is desperately looking for options, the forces of democracy and the forces of tyranny in the world will be in the very same constellation as the forces of conservatism and the forces of socialism here. Then it will no longer an issue of individual nation states to figure out how to finance the way out of the dilemma described above.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

June 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 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 30