Angela Merkel Will Step Down in 2021

[HannibalExMachina]

You're making the same mistakes as your political enemies. Just because both I and the East German state support German patriotism doesn't mean that I support East German authoritarianism. It's the same silly argument made by some on the right, according to which FDR was a Commie or Nazi because, like Hitler, he introduced social welfare and public works.

nice try. but authoritarians both left and right use very similar tactics, for very similar reasons.

"patriotism", the prefered figleaf of nationalism. nationalism relies on externalizing conflict, and excludes, and usually blames, outsiders for internal problems. for that very reason, it is a favourite tool of any authoritarian leadership. sufficently egalitarian and inclusive societies have no need for militant nationalism.

would never have permitted the intrusion of such a large amount of immigrants and the decay of the national character.

outsiders and dissidents to the idea of "patriotism" lead to "decay", is that right? why not call them a "cancer", "vermin" is that too obvious?" hunt down merkel", like an animal, perhaps?

would you defend those dehumanizing terms, or political actors using them?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Merkel`s Family, her father being a cleric, did migrate from Western Germany to Eastern Germany. By choice. Her whole upbringing was to be very loyal to the state and Socialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_...ratic_Republic

Several weeks after the birth of their daughter, the family moved from Hamburg to East Berlin. The interior border was not yet completely closed, but most German migration was in the opposite direction (see also: Berlin Wall). In the first five months of 1954, 180,000 people had fled the GDR, and during the building of the border defenses between 1949 and 1961, around 2.5 million had left.

Kasner moved to the East according to the wishes of Youth Pastor Hans-Otto Wölber, the later (1964–1983) Bishop of Hamburg, who feared a shortage of pastors in the East would work against the church. Kasner found a pastor's position with the Evangelical Church in Berlin-Brandenburg and the family moved to a rectory in the village of Quitzow near Perleberg. Pastors took various positions in their willingness to cooperate with the communist authorities.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...1/quiet-german

Merkel was born in Hamburg, West Germany, in 1954. Her father, Horst Kasner, was an official in the Lutheran Church, one of the few institutions that continued operating in both Germanys after the postwar division of the country. Serious and demanding, he moved the family across the frontier just a few weeks after Angela’s birth—and against his wife’s wishes—to take up ecclesiastical duties in the German Democratic Republic. That year, almost two hundred thousand East Germans fled in the other direction. Kasner’s unusual decision led West German Church officials to call him “the red minister.” Joachim Gauck, a former East German pastor and dissident, who, in 2012, was elected Germany’s largely ceremonial President, once told a colleague that people in the Lutheran Church under Communism knew to stay away from Kasner, a member of the state-controlled Federation of Evangelical Pastors. By most accounts, Kasner’s motives were as much careerist as ideological.

So two points to be made here:

1) There's no evidence to back up your claim
2) The political positions of Merkel's father don't reflect on her's, in any case

Next.

[Diamat]

nice try. but authoritarians both left and right use very similar tactics, for very similar reasons.

"patriotism", the prefered figleaf of nationalism. nationalism relies on externalizing conflict, and excludes, and usually blames, outsiders for internal problems. for that very reason, it is a favourite tool of any authoritarian leadership. sufficently egalitarian and inclusive societies have no need for militant nationalism.

would never have permitted the intrusion of such a large amount of immigrants and the decay of the national character.

outsiders and dissidents to the idea of "patriotism" lead to "decay", is that right? why not call them a "cancer", "vermin" is that too obvious?" hunt down merkel", like an animal, perhaps?

would you defend those dehumanizing terms, or political actors using them?

You're again creating a caricature. It's like me saying that authoritarianism relies on government control of economic and social affairs in the name of creating artificial equality, which, though containing some truth, does not mean that FDR was a socialist nut.

[HannibalExMachina]

except FDRs government didnt control economic and social affairs in any authoritarian manner, so there isnt any truth in there to begin with. i am still comparing systems with striking similarities, and how those are inherent to them. the GDR and both past and modern german nationalists have a lot of common ground ideologically, as you pointed out, is that just coincidence? they all disagree, but have similiar ideologies, somehow?

also, maybe you want to answer my question about the use of particular language? because you do use it a lot. i want to be sure we both know what we are talking about.

[Diamat]

except FDRs government didnt control economic and social affairs in any authoritarian manner, so there isnt any truth in there to begin with. i am still comparing systems with striking similarities, and how those are inherent to them. the GDR and both past and modern german nationalists have a lot of common ground ideologically, as you pointed out, is that just coincidence? they all disagree, but have similiar ideologies, somehow?

also, maybe you want to answer my question about the use of particular language? because you do use it a lot. i want to be sure we both know what we are talking about.

This isn't difficult to understand. Both East Germany and non-totalitarian regimes used patriotic/nationalistic language. Great Britain also used it during the Cold War, yet they were not a regime like East Germany. Nationalistic language, by itself, is no indicator of authoritarianism. The same applies to social welfare programs. Though they can combine well with authoritarianism, if mediated by liberal-democratic values, one can avoid the trend toward authoritarianism.

[HannibalExMachina]

This isn't difficult to understand. Both East Germany and non-totalitarian regimes used patriotic/nationalistic language. Great Britain also used it during the Cold War, yet they were not a regime like East Germany. Nationalistic language, by itself, is no indicator of authoritarianism. The same applies to social welfare programs. Though they can combine well with authoritarianism, if mediated by liberal-democratic values, one can avoid the trend toward authoritarianism.

if mediated. and you can mediate nationalism only so far. coming back to ideology and language, how is dehumanization of opponents and outsiders compatible with liberal-democratic values? esp when used by self-proclaimed democrats? how do you explain that contradiction?

speaking of the cold war regimes, many conservative goverments in western countries, esp the US, were notorious for propping up right-wing dictators in an effort to eliminate ideological opponents, turning more than one democracy into a dictatorship. iran and chile come to mind. they were propagating nationalism, as you said, but how was that tempered by liberal-democratic values in those cases? wasnt ideology central to that?

it certainly is non-sensical to call merkel a communist, but you accuse her of not being nationalistic enough, claiming an actual communist regime had better policies on immigration.

you cant just pick and choose, politics isnt choose-your-own adventure. xenophobia doesnt mesh with democratic values. you can have either, but not both.

[Diamat]

if mediated. and you can mediate nationalism only so far. coming back to ideology and language, how is dehumanization of opponents and outsiders compatible with liberal-democratic values? esp when used by self-proclaimed democrats? how do you explain that contradiction?

It's just your point of view. To an old-fashioned liberal-democrat, protecting one's borders and securing the national heritage is not incompatible with liberal-democratic values. To the contrary, it is viewed as essential to the safeguarding of a liberal democracy.

speaking of the cold war regimes, many conservative goverments in western countries, esp the US, were notorious for propping up right-wing dictators in an effort to eliminate ideological opponents, turning more than one democracy into a dictatorship. iran and chile come to mind. they were propagating nationalism, as you said, but how was that tempered by liberal-democratic values in those cases? wasnt ideology central to that?

Foreign policy is a different can of worms.

it certainly is non-sensical to call merkel a communist, but you accuse her of not being nationalistic enough, claiming an actual communist regime had better policies on immigration.

you cant just pick and choose, politics isnt choose-your-own adventure. xenophobia doesnt mesh with democratic values. you can have either, but not both.

You're being blinded by partisanship. One can pick and choose. Any healthy minded person picks and chooses. Those who swallow something whole, or rejected something without qualification, are usually dogmatists. I can tell that also by your use of the word "xenophobia." Well, if I'm a xenophobe, then you're a xenophile.

[HannibalExMachina]

foreign policy is part of any national or supranational policy, so it cannot be seperated. your pick and choose approach is very convinient, it absolves you from having to explain any contradictions.

i see you cant adress your use of language. not surprising, there really isnt a defense for it. thats why certain ideologies are so dependant on euphemisms. old-fashioned, protecting one's borders and securing the national heritage, gaining space to live, giving people a good death, dictature of the people, public feeling, etc.

you do realize your defense is only to yourself? we do understand that you mean reactionary and hostile to outsiders in general.

you are right on the xenophobe and xenophile part though, even if you are doubtlessly distorting the meaning of the words. you the rational man sceptic of selfish foreigners, i the emotional fool willing to throw myself at their mercy, right?

anyway, i think you have made my points, nothing new is going to come from this i suppose.

[Gäiten]

So two points to be made here:

1) There's no evidence to back up your claim
2) The political positions of Merkel's father don't reflect on her's, in any case

Next.

Her doings proves what I wrote.
She has changed Germany to a more Socialist state since her empowerment, more interested in enriching her minions and supporters than for the welfare of all German citizen.
Let alone her fanatical open-world Agenda (as again proven as she is going to enforce the UN Global Migration Pact on the Germany People).

[Morifea]

more interested in enriching her minions and supporters than for the welfare of all German citizen.

That one would interest me... Also your definition of socialism is not quite from the textbook.

[dogukan]

And Merkel is from them. Her whole behavior shows this. She is no democrat, she is an autocrat.
People are not citizen, there are to be subjects. So they are dealt with. They are to do what they are ordered/told!

Are there any reports of Germany functioning undemocratically? Leaders can make mistakes and all, but if you claim Merkel is an autocrat while not adressing the political approach of Merkel's critiques....I cant take you seriously.

So and here I wonder, why are the Left/Socialists so enthusiastic about the free movement of people and open borders? This is going to destroy each of the social achievements they have succeed in the last century. This is pure Wild West capitalism, “Might makes Right”, no legal state anymore.

That isn't my point. I am more concerned about the anti-intellectual revisionism that is destroying the platform of fair debate in Europe.
Last time people in Europe blamed all traitors as being commies that want to destroy western civilization was in 1930s.

Last time I read the definition of neoliberal right conservatism it does not include what Merkel has done. She has created a new socialist economy, whole industries being not capable to exist in free contest , but needing more and more taxpayer`s money (as to Energy Transformation, Gender and asylum industrial complexes).

I have been following/reading up on german economy for quiet a long time and I never got the impression that it is a "socialist economy"...How do you guys even come up with this?
Asylum, gender regulations etc are not "socialism". Regulations had been an integral part of capitalist economies since its foundation.
If anyyhing, you should adress Trump's tariffs first.

Merkel had overseen the decade of neoliberal transformation of Europe.

I am not going to bother going back and rereading German economic history. I'l ljust take this news piece from 2005 to remind people of the "zeitgeist" at the time.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/blo.../germanysaysno


Nobody called merkel a "socialist" at any point until the rise of the neo-nazi revisionism that wants to fit history into their forced narrative.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Her doings proves what I wrote.
She has changed Germany to a more Socialist state since her empowerment, more interested in enriching her minions and supporters than for the welfare of all German citizen.
Let alone her fanatical open-world Agenda (as again proven as she is going to enforce the UN Global Migration Pact on the Germany People).

No, it doesn't prove it, and socialism isn't the same as communism. Give it up, dude. You said something silly and that's ok but it's time to drop it.

[Heathen Hammer]

Her doings proves what I wrote.
She has changed Germany to a more Socialist state since her empowerment, more interested in enriching her minions and supporters than for the welfare of all German citizen.
Let alone her fanatical open-world Agenda (as again proven as she is going to enforce the UN Global Migration Pact on the Germany People).

It is safe to say that ongoing decline of democracy in Western Europe has a lot to do with Merkel's policies, who herself borrows from what she learned in her years of working for communist agitprop as Merkel's pseudo-democratic oligarchy isn't really that different from Warsaw pact countries. But Merkels and Macrons are a symptom, the real problem is the subversive and treasonous financial establishment itself, which would have to be dealt with if democracy in Europe is to be preserved.

[dogukan]

Communists, financial elite, immigrants, white-haters, secret governments...what an alliance.
It is real sad that political discussion quality in the public sphere have declined so much.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Communists, financial elite, immigrants, white-haters, secret governments...what an alliance.
It is real sad that political discussion quality in the public sphere have declined so much.

And the most ironical thing is, they claim and shout permanently their freedom of speech would surpressed...

A little quote from Merkel today:

No one laughs at a girl anymore today when she says she wants to become a minister or chancellor. It should even give questions, whether it may become a man.

Angela Merkel in her speech on 100 years of women's suffrage

Thats the difference to other male politicians.

She can laugh about herself.

[Heathen Hammer]

Communists, financial elite, immigrants, white-haters, secret governments...what an alliance.
It is real sad that political discussion quality in the public sphere have declined so much.

Yeah, it is really "sad" that people bring up actual factors into concussion instead of all agreeing that bowing down to our benevolent globalist Dear Leaders is the best possible thing to do.

[dogukan]

Yeah, it is really "sad" that people bring up actual factors into concussion instead of all agreeing that bowing down to our benevolent globalist Dear Leaders is the best possible thing to do.

Globalism, aka liberalism, is not a myth or a conspiracy.
We are not bowing down to anyone. Many of us simply believe that globalization is for the most part a good thing. And this is not a new idea. Its been there for 300 years at least.

I dont see why I should be offended when you say "globalist".
The globalist forces have done far better in improving humanity than any other force in the past centuries.

What is sad is how people fail to recall how nationalism and attack on liberalism in this way destroyed the world multiple times.

It is just like mussolini insulting wilson for "international pluralism"...the parallels are crazy really.

[Heathen Hammer]

Globalism, aka liberalism, is not a myth or a conspiracy.
We are bot bowing down to anyone. Many of us simply believe that globalization is for the most part a new thing. And this is not a new idea. Its been there for 300 years at least.

I dont see why I should be offended when you say "globalist".
The globalist forces have done far better in improving humanity than any other force in the past centuries.

What is sad is how people fail to recall how nationalism and attack on liberalism in this way destroyed the world multiple times.

It is just like mussolini insulting wilson for "international pluralism"...the parallels are crazy really.

Instead of trying to take quotes of historical bad guys out of context to create desperate ""parallels" with people you disagree with, let's look at historic events a little bit more soberly:
Let's start with beginning of XX century.
WW1 was motivated by globalism. It was major European powers fighting for things like colonies, geopolitical influence, etc. You can make a desperate argument that Ferdinand's assassination was done by a nationalist group, which is trued but be that as it may, it was merely a catalyst to a conflict that was inevitable due to purely globalist geopolitical tendencies of major powers involved.
Hitler was somewhat of a globalist as well, while resistance against him in Europe was motivated by ethno-nationalism. Globalist tendencies can also be applied to USSR's "word revolution" and ideas of Churchill and FDR as well.
Ethnic nationalism was the leading force behind opposition to both imperialism of NATO and Soviets.
Moving on to current times, it is needless to say we can hardly attribute Iraq war, Libya war and current conflicts in Syria to nationalism, as main reason behind those were globalist interests of superpowers as well as religious sectarianism, which is globalist by its very nature.
So there we have it, you are simply ignoring major factors that prove that reality is the exact opposite of what you described - it was nationalism that contributed greatly to Western civilization, its political, technological and ideological achievements, while globalism merely contributed by destroying such achievements, sending world into turmoil and darkness of another intellectual dark age.

[Morifea]

I`m quite happy with our dark and pityful germany, as it was shaped by the globalists world government .

[Gäiten]

Are there any reports of Germany functioning undemocratically? Leaders can make mistakes and all, but if you claim Merkel is an autocrat while not adressing the political approach of Merkel's critiques....I cant take you seriously

Germany has lost its democracy. The parties, especially Merkel has destroyed the state of law. Laws are only followed when they do fit their ideologies and agendas.
And without a state of law, there is no democracy.
There are reports about this, but they are mostly ignored by the subservient press and media.
Other medias are ignored by people who do not want to believe this.

That isn't my point. I am more concerned about the anti-intellectual revisionism that is destroying the platform of fair debate in Europe.
Last time people in Europe blamed all traitors as being commies that want to destroy western civilization was in 1930s.

Today you can see that people who do not want to give their sovereignty are called traitors (of the European ideals et cetera). These people are threatened (as Merkel did in their speeches to the end of WkI). Her true authoritarian style.
Especially the Left is not capable to discuss factually. Without their safe spaces they get hysteric.

I have been following/reading up on german economy for quiet a long time and I never got the impression that it is a "socialist economy"...How do you guys even come up with this?
Asylum, gender regulations etc are not "socialism". Regulations had been an integral part of capitalist economies since its foundation.
If anyyhing, you should adress Trump's tariffs first.

Gender ideology and asylum are industries of their own in Germany. State-sponsored industries because they need taxpayers moneys (there are nor benefits in these, only costs).
For this money Merkel has gotten much needed very public acclaim by these very well-connected coteries.
Another socialist economic is the communitisation of the debts of other European countries.
And the energy transistion.
Without massive influx of taxpayers money all this would have gone the way of the economic dodo.

Merkel had overseen the decade of neoliberal transformation of Europe.

This is your opinion. My is different.
She has created a global-oriented moloch with socialist background (have taxpayers paid for all their ideological dresses-up wrong decisions), hardly a competent and innovative capitalism-based social market industry as her party (CDU) once stood for.

Nobody called merkel a "socialist" at any point until the rise of the neo-nazi revisionism that wants to fit history into their forced narrative.

Funny, Neo National Socialists are Socialists either.

I`m quite happy with our dark and pityful germany, as it was shaped by the globalists world government .

Well, each system does have its profiteers.