« John Rosenthal on Murat Kurnaz and German Media Exploitation of Guantanamo | Main | Markus Günther: Hypocritical Americans Suppressing Memories of Slavery - Other Injustices »


Most Germans I know feel that the Church Tax, (kirchen steuer) exempts them from donating for other things....
As a busy volunteer in the community, I must say that the level of selfishness from my fellow volunteers (Germans) is sometimes hard to understand. The trouble they will go through to get a few euro from the organization is unbelievable. I mean, if something needs to be done and I need to pay 5 or 10 euro out of my pocket to get it done, I will do it and say nothing else about it. The Germans I work with would never do that, and they don’t understand why I do. They go through all the trouble to either get the cash first or recover it afterwards.
Societal difference I guess..

"Why aren't these amerikanische Verhältnisse headline news in German media?"

Following up on my rather sarcastic analogy on the preceeding thread: They won't report it, because the German media printing this story would be like a drug dealer selling fresh fruit. No profit in it. The junkies won't buy it, because it's not their drug. They'll just get their hit somewhere else -- plenty of pushers out there.


Maybe you don't drown in taxes and regulations and have more freedom what to do with the money -> you earned. <-

If I'm driving 80 km for the company with my car, of course I want my 24 Euros back...

Sure, I could be generous and shouldn't mind about losing a tenner here and a tenner there - I can afford it. Not.

Check my comments again. I was talking about when doing community work on a volunteer basis. (Goes with the topic of charitable giving.) Not within a business relationship.
Of course, within a business relationship that is a different story for us all, as you correctly mentioned.

Oh, right, sorry. Why are they volunteers after all?
They should contrast the amount of cash they want back with the time they spend as volunteers and how much cash that would mean for them if it was a business. ;)

I used to live in the anglosphere for many years. When I came back to Germany this was actually one of a number of points that struck me: the typical German is still a pretty stingy bugger.

Why is this?

I don't think it's German nature as yet, but it is about to become part of it. One reason might be that every area where you can prove your generosity is already being organised by the state. They take the money off you in an amount they decide before you even can decide yourself whether you give or don't give. It's all sorted out in advance.

Another reason might be that Germany never in history had a culture of individuality like the US has where individual gestures of generosity pay off in the long run.

For all those who want to know more about it I can recommend this book: "Cowboy Capitalism: European Myths, American Reality" by Olaf Gersemann, the German title is "Amerikanische Verhältnisse. Die falsche Angst der Deutschen vor dem Cowboy-Kapitalismus".

I've read it cover to cover (German version) and I can say Mr. Gersemann is merciless in the way he deals with all the prejudices and myths about social security, social justice and income equality that are around.

For most Germans, money is intrinsically linked with feelings such as fear and loathing. Money is not an object of utility, but a fetish in the negative sense of the term.

It takes a lot of self-denial and submission to nonsensical rules to make any money here, and when you finally have it, why give it away without having the receiver perform the same roleplay?

If you don´t like the drill, you can try to live without money, but that won´t be much better. Some days I feel like leaving it all behind, and let them rot in their permanent abuse of each other, but where to go?

I'm going to throw out my "Far Side" calendar. Who needs it? The propaganda in the German media is a lot more amusing. For the cognoscenti out there in need of a good belly laugh, SPON's latest offering of "objective criticism" should be just what the doctor ordered. What's that? You think the accompanying graphic of Charleton Heston waving a Winchester is biased? You think the breathless allusions to evil American corporations and anti-abortion religious fanatics are over the top and slanted, not to mention hackneyed? You just don't get it, do you? Try reading the last sentence, before hurling about all these foul accusations. Wait! Allow me:

"Die Klage der Abtreibungs-Gegner war allerdings auch von Gewerkschaften und liberalen Bürgerrechts-Gruppen unterstützt worden."

Tranlation: "It should be pointed out that the complaint of the abortion opponents was also supported by labor unions and liberal human rights groups."

Voila! Balance! Objectivity! Where are your accusations of "media bias" now, oh ye of little faith?

This reminds me of an incident that happened to me back in the 1980's when I lived in Switzerland. I sent 100 SF to the IRC to help with some disaster (I can't even remember what), and I got a personal letter thanking me for it from the president of the IRC. I actually wondered if I was the only person who sent money! I've never gotten anything but a form letter -- if I got a response -- from any organization anywhere before or since.

Well, Germany has become a socialist nanny-state and charity is part of the American Way of Life. Unfortunately, the latter isn't a headline news in Germany anymore.

I am aware of and despise the german left-wing Anti-American-Bias. Still not EVERYTHING is better in the US than in Europe.

My wild guess is, that neither you, David, nor the commenters making fun of the "socialist nanny-state", are right now in the need for big scale help. Yet imagine, that you loose you job at the age of 58 because of cancer or that you can't get health insurance because of some precondition you were born with.

What would you rather depend upon then, spontaneous charity or a system that takes care?

I still feel I want to add something constructive to this thread.

Let me start with this: America is stupid.

Proof: The Morse vs. Fredreck decision.

It is a historical fact that Jesus used Cannabis. The sacred plants are the heart of our Judeo-Christian heritage.

The supreme court is stupid, since it ruled that an individual was not free to promote that fact because it is a call to break the prohibition law.

The defendant is stupid, since he said that he did not really mean what he said although he became the blind man that hit the mark.

The plaintiff is stupid, since he is upholding prohibition legislation which is conflicting with our Judeo-Christian heritage.

The faithful who have opposed the decision are stupid, since they did not oppose it in defence of the truth but only of an empty idea of free speech.

The abolitionists who are opposing the evil prohibition are stupid, since they believe abolition could come from throwing away the Judeo-Christian heritage.

The gullible audience is stupid because they do as if nothing significant had happened and continue all the trash that is being told agains the sacred plants.

The inconsiderable exceptions to these rules are stupid, since they are inconsiderable.

America is stupid, and don´t get me started about the rest of the world... or DO get me started!!!

I am stupid, since I have not yet managed to raise the funds necessary to work full force on resolving this Gordian knot in the no-man´s land between politics and religion.

If you are interested to spend money on preserving our Judeo-Christian heritage through abolition, you can support an indicividual who has knowledge, experience and ambition but lacks money. Working out the truth made me poor, I need some exceptional charity.

Click on my handle to get in contact

A simple answer....
Because Germany isn't Weltmeister in it.

Anyway, here is another interesting example of American Philanthropy:
How AmeriCares got started:


You missed the point. The Supreme Court neither restricted free speech nor made the Supreme Court a judgement about religion or history. The Supreme Court ruled that students must obey the school regulations. Is there anything wrong with it?

Do your homework before posting such a nonsense.

German Voice - In this case the school regulation in question is an appendix to the prohibition law and it is reasonable to assume that it would not exist if the latter did not exist. Actually, the chief justice argued that this case was different from another one (Tinker v. Des Moines) which concerned a school regulation that was not an appendix to a law.

Is there anything wrong? The prohibition law is wrong! The man who authored that banner should have been upholding that position but preferred to hide behind the claim of nonsense.

The comments to this entry are closed.


The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

February 2021

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