« Update on 'Weltspiegel: Germany's Useful Media Idiots - Part Deux' | Main | News from a Calmer Iraq »

Comments

It would seem that Claire has got carried away by her CIA novels. "Europe as Christian society torn by heresies"? "Anti Americanism as a religious substitute....something like a cult"? And of course a spot of Eurasia here and a sprinkle of jihad there. Good grief. Sounds like Illuminati II.

Not bad, Fridolin - you obviously have mastered the art of irrelevant comments.

Now, do you have anything of substance to say? You know - logical arguments with which you want to refute hers?

Well Solitudinarian, of course we could start a lengthy debate concerning Mrs Clair's interview, but I don't think it would be worth our while. Just read for yourself, and I'm sure you'll see what I mean. It's just the regular Eurasia Doomsday Report. We don't really have to go over that all over again now,do we?


War of the Worlds

The great clash of our times need not to be seen only between fundamentalist Islamic opinions and free world values, but also as a war within the free world between Socialism and Capitalism. This text explains why socialism is expected to lose the economic battle, which might culminate in a war between the two worlds.

The main players in government-regulated capitalism are all English speaking countries, plus China and India.

The main protagonists of the democratic socialistic approach are the countries of old Europe, France, Germany, and Italy, a sizable part of the world economy. Their basic creed is ‘social justice’ (or redistribution of wealth, as it was called under communism, which nowadays means taking money from those who have earned it and giving it to those who have not earned it). This requires high taxes, not only for a wide range of welfare payments, but also for large subsidies paid to businesses groups that have good government connections. These favourable connections are won through political contributions and through persistent media campaigns (like the myths perpetuated by the farmers lobby).

One recipient of a form of taxation are the state-sponsored TV networks. In Germany each household is forced by government legislation to pay a hefty monthly fee for radio and TV programs provided by these networks. The results are explained by Ray D. as he writes the following in Davids Medienkritik of March 20, 2006:

“Unfortunately, many Germans view these same state media as impartial and unbiased because they are (supposedly) independent of commercial interests. But they are necessarily dependent on the German government via the German taxpayer. And that means our German public television friends rely mightily on politicians who support continued and increasing levels of taxation (through the GEZ fee and other taxes) to support, protect and expand their budgets, personnel and influence.
Not surprisingly, there is a deadly aversion against those who would so much as suggest cutting or even eliminating the taxes flowing through the umbilical cord. America, with its diverse, rough-and-tumble, private-sector media and emaciated public broadcasting, is seen as an anathema. There is great favoritism in Germany towards those who staunchly support taxation for public broadcasting. They tend to find themselves left of center: The SPD, the Greens, the PDS. The result is political bias. The lack of influential alternative media only exacerbates the problem, especially when it comes to foreign reporting. Here a shrill, extreme monotone dominates the media landscape.”

As mentioned above, the main target of socialistic media aggression is capitalistic America. Only negative reporting and ridicule are acceptable. It is the same political propaganda tone that worked so successfully for Hitler. With the help of the German media, he talked all of Germany into one frame of mind (which nowadays nobody admits to any longer). The same has now been achieved by the German media in support of the ‘socialistic economic model’ and of unquestioned anti-Americanism.

Back in history, there was once a rational for Socialism. The then new phenomenon of industrialization developed initially without an appropriate political and legal framework, and led to exploitation of workers leaving the farms for the cities. New industrial wealth created large income discrepancies. In this environment, a new socio-political ideology was developed which was not based on economic science nor on psychological understanding of human nature, but on utopian ideals: Communism and Socialism.
The utopia of Communism could only be sustained in a dictatorship, but even in Russia it collapsed eventually under economic imperatives.

But the idea based on wishful thinking still continues in its milder, democratic form of Socialism. In a number of countries, socialistic politicians and allied labour unions prevent the adaptation of their economy to worldwide competition. In these countries the labour market does not get deregulated, leading to high levels of unemployment. Overblown government welfare systems and business subsidies distort business viability and competitiveness, while requiring ever-increasing taxes.

Economies in the English speaking world, and in China and India, are doing well, and people are increasingly content. In the countries of old Europe, people are disgruntled. They envy subconsciously America’s power, and they seek conscious relief in gloating about anything negative they can find about America and its allies.

This would be only an internal problem to these countries, if their system were sustainable. But, as communism was not, neither will be socialism, since it is not compatible with economic principles and with the psychology of human behaviour. As hard as they try, socialistic countries cannot stop the progress of globalisation, of regulated free-market competition.

Let’s take a look at Germany in the next decade. As rising taxes and rigid labour market conditions become uneconomical, companies move out. Unemployment rises. Welfare payments increase. A vicious cycle develops. Governments collapse. Powerful left-wing media become more vicious in their attacks on America, blaming it for everything, including economic globalisation and capitalistic exploitation of the world. Extremist political parties gain power in Germany. Anti-Americanism becomes hysterical. Germany supplies ESA space exploration missiles to Iran, allowing Iran to fire its secretly developed nuclear warheads on America. The war of the worlds has begun.

A funny scenario, isn’t it? But not impossible. It would be interesting to hear some alternative hypotheticals about the future of Socialism.

@Gunter
Alternative. Communication between Germans and Americans continue. American Host mothers call their Geerman host children. The Germans return the calls. They travel to visit...back and forth. They vote for parties that are not extremist.
May be a pipe dream...or...it may be that it is actually already something that happens.
It could be that a host mom just got off the phone with her host son. Could be.
BTW, it was great to have a nice long chat with Tobi. He and his family will be visiting us this summer. We visited them in 2003.
Funny is NOT the word I would use for this senario!

"If young Germans are now seen muttering darkly about how they deplore American militarism-a sentiment, I am persuaded, that represents nothing more than their own stifled longing to switch on the tank's ignition and thrill once again to the low deep rumble of its engine-it is certainly nothing new; Germans have complained for a very long time of these things"

I m not that good at english to fully understand that part. Does she actually say that germans would like to go to war again today??

I wouldnt disagree to it as regards many young men TODAY that I know, but certainly most older men (35+) and most women of every age would definately disagree due to their pacifistic nature.

@Dave: You identified the one part of that interview that I sharply disagree with. I've seen other comments like this lately, suggesting that Germans have some inbred genetic desire for war and conquest. I'm not sure where the heck this is coming from; I think it's an emotional reaction to the anti-Americanism that they are facing. Kind of understandable, but two wrongs still don't make a right. The people of Germany cannot, as a group, be lumped into the "evil" category any more than the people of America can be.

However, let me say something about this so-called "pacifism". I wrote here a couple of weeks ago, on the "squandered solidarity" thread, about the protestors in Europe who wept on 9/11. My point was that many of them wept, not for the Americans who died, but because their own world-view had been shattered. Their view of the world was that of a pacifistic, Pollyanna world that would provide for them and ask nothing in return. That was what they wept for. The planes that slammed into the World Trade Center killed that. Such people are not pacifistic out of altruism; they are pacifistic out of selfishness. It rationalizes their refusal to accept their responsibilities as citizens and as thinking, rational human beings. As long as they themselves are not directly threatened, they have no interest in the matter. But to believe such is to believe that the lives of other human beings are worthless. Others are easily disposable as long as one's own situation is not directly threatened.

I think that was the point that Berlinski was trying to make. Being a principled pacifist means that one must be prepared to endure hardships and be prepared to sacrifice oneself for the cause that one believes in. (Ghandi was beaten many times by the colonial British police in the course of his protests; he never defended himself because he wanted his injuries to drive home his point.) But the "pacifists" of Europe today are willing to sacrifice nothing, if it means that they have to get their fat asses off of the couch, never mind being beaten up by political opponents. It's much easier to let the Islamists roll over the continent, until the day comes that one's own had has the gun barrel pressed against it. On that day, of course, everthing changes (check out the "pacifist" French youths over the last couple of months). The problem is, by the time that day comes, it may be too late. A lot of people in Europe are denying this truth, and all of the anti-Americanism, all of the sniping in Le Monde and Stern, all of the harsh words from the likes of Schroeder and de Villipin, are nothing more than psychological rationalization -- enablers who make it easy for the addicts to obtain more of the drug.


The problem Europe faces is that the position it wants to take in regards to the current war, and the way that it wants to go about it, simply won't work. Europe wants to remain neutral. (Or so it says; that's debatable given the under-the-table deals we keep finding between European governments and the Islamists. But let's accept the premise for the sake of argument.) Fine. But the problem is, a country that wants to remain neutral when a war rages on its borders had better be prepared to defend itself; otherwise its neutrality is a best a pose (and at worst a treason). Europe's problem is that the other side -- the Islamists -- will not permit it to remain neutral. They view Europe as territory to be conquered, for access to its wealth and resources. If Europe will not defend itself, then that conquest is all but certain, and then the Islamists will use Europe's resources against the West. So by choosing to do nothing, Europe in effect chooses to align itself with the Islamists. Our enemy.

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem Americans have with Europe today.

damn cous!!
If you didnt just hit the nail on the head!!
That was probably the most succint explanation of my feelings I have ever read.
Man, I love blogs!!

What euros don't get is that what the US is saying to them actually comes from a good place but just like beating someone up so that they can't keep their keys and drive drunk(enly) we just feel that we've been tuned out and that the euros are turning up the stereo to drown us out.
Every other culture in history wouldve kept its winnings, but after WW2 the US handed europe back.
We will never ever be forgiven for that act of charity and grace.

Relying on european cooperation is not proactive,i'm just sorry to have to say that. Anti-Americanism in Germany is about as concerning as the Canadian Navy, bitch all you want, youre cutting your own throat and its really not that interesting anymore. Tchuss, suckers..

@ Cousin Dave

You are probably right as regards the younger ones that dislike war, they really dont care much about others in the world. The older ones actually did once they were young, but that has also come to an end I guess.

Its interesting that you express so much fear of europe being overtaken by islamists. Firstly, dont make the mistake to overestimate the importance of europe. As for germany: europe is not responsible for our inner security. Instead we have an inner security service (actually 17! different offices operating independantly from each other), which do a great job at observing every kind of suspicious muslim. They cant even go to their mosque undetected. Every hatemongering priest is quickly identified, arrested / kicked out (depending on whether he is a citizen or not) of the country and the telephone calls of the others are recorded.

But that only helps to keep this problem from exploding, on the long term we really need to integrate them. My point is that a society with members so different from another needs something to bind them together. In the past, such problems have never arisen since there were wars from time to time. As soon as you are faced to death and only your life and that of your comrades matters, cultural differences are forgotten; even after the war came to an end.

To the point of Europe being overtaken by the muslims: I guess many americans in this blog are a bit paranoid in that point. Seriously, do you think we chased the turks out of the vienna area several times in history just to let them in now? Muslims are watched here carefully and are not trusted by ordinary people. This maybe different in some other european countries (like france), but germans would never stand by and let those stone age monkeys take over (sorry for the offensive language, it sounds less harsh in german).

An overt Islamic takeover is not necessary for European neutrality to damage the US. We have already seen the Hamburg cell of Al Qaeda, the Finsbury mosque, and other Europe-based Islamists cause damage to the US. What we are "paranoid" about is a neutrality like that of Sweden in WWII, permitting a face-saving pretense of sovereignity while permitting the transit of troops across Swedish territory to invade and subjugate their neighbors, and export of critical resources to the Reich. The Spaniards thought they had such an agreement, and the subsequent terror activity on their soil has not convinced them otherwise. They and the French would make such a deal in a heartbeat. Would Germany?

@ Mitch

When I recall the history of european countries in the last 3-4 centuries, I guess there is a simple answer to that: Germany only would, when the pros clearly outweight the cons in such a situation. And since the german economy is connected closely to the american, a behavior like the one you described seems very unlikely.

Additionally the muslims are so much distrusted due to their religious behavior that noone would allow them to become any stronger while weakening another power like america that is more relyable.

It would be simply irrational, so nobody needs to be afraid of that.

@Dave
Seriously, do you think we chased the turks out of the vienna area several times in history just to let them in now?
Um, Dave, don't look now, but they're in.

I read Berlinski's book and for the most part I think it is just great. But I found the chapter on Germany a bit perplexing. Bear with me here, as I have no cultural context to place this in, but she uses a (heavy metal?) band named Rammstein as a hook to illuminate German youth culture. That might be like Henri Bernard Levy using Eminem to explain the U.S., but I'm not sure. The Nazi overtones in their lyrics and use of Leni Reifenstahl (sp?) clips in their promos are a bit problematical.

No, she is not saying that Germans are genetically predisposed. She is saying that historically, when they've had this mindset, there's trouble. I'll give you a few excerpts.
-----------------
The members of the band were tired of national self-reproach, they said. "The Americans aren't ashamed about the fact that they killed the Indians," said Kruspe-Bernstein. "If the Germans had eradicated the Indians, we would have had a bad conscience. We would have had to be ashamed."

The Americans aren't ashamed of what they did," Landers agreed. "Ja" Our music is about the revival of a healthy german self-esteem. When people come to our concerts, they can experience something which they can perhaps otherwise not experience."

Ja, like soccer," said Kruspe-Bernstien. "Soccer is popular because that's the only place in germany where one can call out Germany.
-----------

She also interviews Jeff Gedmin at some length. I won't post the part where he talks about how German TV journalists told him America deserved 9/11 (we already are familiar with that BS). So, here is his analysis.
---------------
"I had this young studen say to me once, 'For the first time in my life, I feel proud to be German." And I said, 'Great. Why is that?' And she said, 'Because we had the nerve to stand up to the United States.' And she thought that was so obvious. And I said, 'Well, I hope that's not the only basis for your patriotism,' and she didn't get my point. This was spontaneous on her part, she was a very lovely person, and she was feeling very good. She smiled. She could drink a beer: We're saying no to America. And that had nothing to do with Iraq, by the way. It was about them and us.
[snip]
Now, you know, we've had problems in Iraq. But if we hadn't had problems, that would have cost us great German resentment, too. Because we would have removed him, the Iraqis would have like us - and that was not what they wanted either. A lot of it is about power, and pathology, and payback.
----------

And if you want to read the rest, you'll have to buy the book.

Now, back to you Dave. If there really is so much distrust of those you repelled at the Gates of Vienna, it is obvious to me that it is outweighed by the cultural resentment of Americans. There is a reason 'schadenfreude' is a German word. And I have little hope for Germany or the rest of Europe. It won't be news to anyone who has read previous postings of mine, but the EU that Germany and France have engineered is a totalitarian system, foisted on some citizens as a redemptive political contstruct. Europe has yoked her own to servitude and a comatose pacifism, leaving room only for a bitter satisfaction that the power that defeated, liberated, and protected them is now 'deservedly' threatened. And maybe, just maybe, if the US goes the way of Athens at the hands of Sparta, Germany can finally let go of the shame.

That is the pathology that Gedmin speaks of.

@ Pamela

Its Leni Riefenstahl spelled correctly - and yes, Rammstein used some scenes of her films for video clips (at least once). But I dont see much of a problem with that. You can go and buy the DVDs of her most famous movies everywhere, and I know of people who simply buy them due to their brilliant art style.

Also you will admit, something was not right with germanys self image in the 90s. Before that decade I was too young to notice. And it isnt right today either, but I would say its improving. Why shouldnt we be proud of our heritage? I cannot see any reason for that.

And as the biggest country in europe, we have to pursue our interests in another way as smaller countries would. We are only beginning to use our military for that part, so we have not yet reached the stage other countries with the same power have.

The most people I know do not hate america. They simply dislike its aggressive international behavior, since such an aggressive behavior may bring disorder to the political structure. And since we do not pursue our interests as aggressively, this leads to a disadvantage on our side.

They are not proud of germany because of its current attitude towards america but because of its history of more than thousand years that is part of an understanding of educated germans. Our people is here for such a long time, has endured ups and downs and we are still here after all! Who would have expected our country to stand where it stands today after each of the world wars for example? Or after napoleon crushed the first Reich? And there is still much room left for improvement.

In my point of view, the glass is certainly half full :)

@Dave
"Why shouldnt we be proud of our heritage?"
Yes, why shouldn't you? The only ones to keep you germans from being proud about yourself are you!
When was the last time, if ever, that you heard an american say "Shut up! After what you did in WWII you should be quiet!" No one does that, but yet the germans always act as if they had been always suppressed by the US. Its the same BS with the so called "amrican-pop-culture" that supposedly has "invaded" germany. No one forced any german to drink Coca Cola, eat at Mac Donalds or listen to american music. Funny, though, that hardly any german complains about being invaded by turkish Döner-Stands.

Dave,

"The most people I know do not hate America. They simply dislike its aggressive international behavior, since such an aggressive behavior may bring disorder to the political structure."

I wish you would elaborate on what you mean. From my perspective, as an American, I can name countries that are much more aggressive than America. Here are some examples.

Russia: - When they were the former Soviet Union, they violently put down uprisings in East Berlin and invaded Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, Finland, and the Baltic States. At this moment, they are fighting a bloody war in Chechnia.

China - has invaded South Korea, Vietnam Tibet and India. They are constantly making a military posture against Taiwan. And they took Hong Kong by threat.

France - has invaded Egypt, has fought bloody rebellions in Algeria and Vietnam, and is presently occupying several African nations.

Germany - Invaded Kosovo, along with other allied nations. (I won't mention the big one, WWII or WWI.)

Cuba - fought proxy wars for the Soviet Union in Angola, Mozambique and Grenada.

Vietnam - invaded Cambodia and has occupied Laos.

Argentina - invaded the Falkland Islands.

I guess my question is why is U.S. "aggression" bad for the political order....but these other countries get a pass by your countrymen?

George M

"I guess my question is why is U.S. "aggression" bad for the political order....but these other countries get a pass by your countrymen?"

I m living in the present and not in the past - how many countries have initiated as many offenses as the us has during the last few years? Also, the conflicts you enumerated hardly have as much influence on the political world order as the american offensives have. I guess thats the answer.

@Dave
So you live in the present? Well lets see...
Russia fighting in Tchechia and that quite dirty. But how should you know, german press is eclipsing this as much as possible.
France still pursuing its national interests, if need be even by force, heavily in Africa.
But how should you know, german press completely neglecting this as well.
China using continously military threats against Taiwan and still occupying Tibet against all international law and this for over 30 years now.
Sudan waging a genocide against its own population with strong support of all arabian nations.
...
Tis list could continue for quite a while but never mind keep concentrated on the "real" threat to world peace - the USA of course.

Dave you have clearly seen the light!

Dave,

I still don't get from where you are coming from.

"how many countries have initiated as many offenses as the us has during the last few years?"

The Russian intervention in Chechnia is present and on going.

French intervention in Africa is present and on going.

German occupation (Allied) of Kosovo is present and on going.

"Also, the conflicts you enumerated hardly have as much influence on the political world order as the American offensives have."

I think that logical people can conclude that the Russian invasion of Afghanistan is the event that galvanized Islamic militancy. Al Quida originated from play-boy Saudis giving up their Mercedes 500s for a chance of martyrdom against the Russians.

Also, who gave Germany permission to send troops to Kosovo? Certainly the UN security council did not approve the presence of German or NATO troops.

I think that your view that the US is "aggressive" is a bias, that is perpetrated by group-think in your country. I wonder if your perception has been molded by the head-lines posted in Spiegel and Stern magazines that are shown on the right hand side of this blog.

Ah now I get your point. My fault, I didnt make my point clearly enough. Of course the military actions done by Russia or China can be compared on a scale to those of the USA. I was actually meaning the importance and relevance of these military actions for germany! We dont have many interests in chechnia nor do we have many in Taiwan or Tibet or in Sudan. At least those conflicts do no harm to german interests.

But with countries like Iraq or Iran, our trade volume exceeds any of the other western countries. Thats why a foreign aggressor is shaking our interests there (I guess our trade volume with Iraq has suffered from the latest Gulf War). And the most offensive country in that region is the USA.

I really regret that I didnt get your point at once, blame my english :)

Only I wouldnt say that germany occupies the Kosovo, we are simply keeping up public order there.

@ [German] trade volume exceeds any of the other western countries.
That's only because exports to dinky Euro neighbors. If American companies counted exports to other U.S. states, the numbers would swell impressively, too.

@Dave
Why shouldnt we be proud of our heritage? I cannot see any reason for that.
I have no problem with that.

I was actually meaning the importance and relevance of these military actions for germany! We dont have many interests in chechnia nor do we have many in Taiwan or Tibet or in Sudan. At least those conflicts do no harm to german interests.

Oh. Dear. Lord.

Dave, may I ask how old you are? Are you still in school? Are they teaching you anything.

But with countries like Iraq or Iran, our trade volume exceeds any of the other western countries. Thats why a foreign aggressor is shaking our interests there (I guess our trade volume with Iraq has suffered from the latest Gulf War). And the most offensive country in that region is the USA.

I see. When the US picks up the gaunlet of war that has been thrown by the Islamofacists, it's bad because it hurts Germany's trade.

Hmm, let's see.

German police say they have raided 41 sites in the country as part of an investigation into the illegal sale of equipment to Iran for possible use in its nuclear program.
German Police Raid Firms Behind Alleged Iran Sales

Or, you could try this........

Iraq has identified Germany as the country whose companies did most to help Baghdad in its drive to acquire weapons of mass destruction, said a German newspaper yesterday.
The leftwing Berlin daily, die tageszeitung, said it had obtained a copy of part of the document handed by Baghdad to the UN earlier this month which supplied details of its weapons programmes. The extract included a list of foreign companies, of which more than half - 80 - were German.

Germany was 'key supplier' of Saddam

So "the most offensive country in that region is the USA".

Good. Cry me a river.

Getting back to the interview that started this thread, one of the best parts was crisp statement of the five truly important problems Germany faces:

a) declining birthrate
b) rampant secularism
c) lack of economic growth
d) difficulty in assimilating immigrants
e) increasingly ineffective military

I find it fascinating that while the Americans on this blog will raise these problems from time to time, none of the Germans who contribute are willing to say much, if anything, about them. No one, it seems, is either willing to refute or to discuss what might be done to address these problems. Feinbein seems to think the very subjects are unnecessary to discuss and Dave assures us that the ordinary Germans will not let those Stone Age monkeys take over without saying how they will be prevented from doing so. In fairness, this behavior is mirrored by the German media and the German public as a whole. About the only thing I recall recently was one article in the SZ reporting that Germany's birthrate was now so low that the population decline was now irreversible. The tone of the article was quite restrained, almost apathetic, which seems to mirror the atttiude of the German public as a whole. I just wonder how it will be before Germany will wish to talk about what's truly important.

Amen Ambrose...
I am a yank who lives in Germany.
I am amazed by the ostrich with its head in the sand mentality here.. rather discuss social inequality in the USA then discuss the real hard problems there are to solve in Germany..
an example..
in Nov 2004 the Germans were almost obsessed with the US election..
but in Sept 2004 there was an election in Saxony.
over 30 percent of the voters voted for the parties of Hitler Honecker and Ulbrecht..
in my eyes a sign of a serious problem..
how much was/is that discussed?

Last week I talked to a German business man. He complaint about his American partners in the US and that they are so stupid, they know nothing about the world and especially Germany. I asked him, how many states the US have. His quick answer: 54! Even when I told him that he was wrong, he did not understand why I asked him this question.

We musn't have disorder now, must we, Dave?

And that's why the world doesn't like America, we're built on disorder and have created it for 230-odd years.

"I asked him, how many states the US have. His quick answer: 54!"

@Gabi

Maybe he was including Israel, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands?

Dave wrote:
"The most people I know do not hate america. They simply dislike its aggressive international behavior, since such an aggressive behavior may bring disorder to the political structure. And since we do not pursue our interests as aggressively, this leads to a disadvantage on our side."

I also often hear similar remarks when I speak with friends and acquaintances here in Germany. What I don’t hear is a better alternative.

Please allow me to elaborate with concrete examples of how well "the political structure" would be ordered if the US did not behave so "aggressively":

In Iraq weapons inspectors would be long gone, Saddam Hussein would be rebuilding his weapons programs, and his regime would still be abducting, torturing, and burying in mass graves about ten thousand men women and children each year.

There would still be large terrorist training camps in Afghanistan training hundreds of terrorists each year.

In Kosovo a major part of the former population would be buried in mass graves or living in refugee camps.

Haiti would have undergone a bloody revolution.

In Kroatia thousands more would have been killed and the rest would be living under Serbian repression.

Kuwait would be a province of Iraq, and thousands of Kuwaitis would be living in exile.

These are the most recent examples of "the political structure" that "The most people I know" "simply dislike" to be "disorder"ed by the United States’ "aggressive international behavior".

But I have yet to hear from anyone how such a political structure would be more advantageous than the actual political structure brought about by America’s "aggressive behavior".

Germerican,

Actually I though the euro's had a structure as well as the means to implement it.

That means is the EU Defense Force. I think it is gearing up to march off to the Congo and other places. The Congo mission is to be lead by the Germans. It should be sucessful.

The US can fold its flag and go home to start working on its own form of "social justice"

The comments to this entry are closed.

Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

December 2018

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 31