Germany, the best or worst-case scenario

Founder of New Europe In an act of peaceful power exhibition, Muslims in Rome perform their Friday prayers in front of the Colosseum. For the next prayer, why not in Piazza San Pietro in the Vatican City.

Conspiracy is a micro affair and never applies to large-scale cases. At the macro level, reality is what you see. Nothing more and nothing less.

For the past one hundred years, at the macro level, Germany has been writing the history of Europe. Germany pulled Europe into two world wars, which cost around 100 million lives. Nearly the whole of Europe was occupied by the Germans twice and was liberated twice because it is needed more than Gewehr 98 rifles and Panzers to keep Europe occupied for a long time.

Taking advantage of the lack of politically thinking European leaders after the end of the Cold War, Germany took the opportunity to launch World War III, which it won without even declaring it. This time, however, the occupation lasted more because it used the Deutsche Mark instead of armies, concentration camps and other deadly weapons, which, in 1999, it renamed it the Euro and imposed on all other the wealthy nations of the European Union.

Since then, Germany has occupied Europe economically. In order to maintain its dominion and solidify its economic leadership, Germany through the Berlin-driven European Commission imposed rules that resulted to protracted austerity, overregulation, the killing of all individual creative initiative, and upset the social equilibria by systematically depleting the middle class of Europe.

Germany, despite having meticulously and intelligently managed to kick-out of the European house the UK, wanted to also dominate Europe politically but displayed no political will, only linear thinking, in a deeply political environment. As a result, it lost the opportunity to lead Europe.

With Angela Merkel having entered into the sunset of her political career, and with no real political successor in her party, the major German political parties are galloping towards a decline. Germany has lost its momentum.

Now, there are likely to be ordinary citizens from Main Street who will irrationally influence, and not by Cartesian logic as the Germans usually do, the next electoral process. Therefore, the next German leader may be elected democratically (history repeats itself), by anarchists, the jobless, desperados, and all kinds from the “Neo” class – neo-Nazis, neo-poor, neo-Communists, et al, all of which are children of austerity.

It is only a matter of time. Germany is a country of discipline and order and Germans need to be ruled by a strong leader. Rather sooner than later they will emerge not from the Communist remains of Thuringia or the bureaucrats of Berlin, but from the vanguard of Germany, from a place like Bavaria. However, regardless of where they are from, the new situation will not be able to provide solutions to the sort of real problems that are not only economic, but also social and political.

Therefore, the new German leader, in order to survive and dominate, will necessarily have to discover an enemy of German society and destroy it. This is a known recipe. A century ago, after being elected under similar conditions, Adolf Hitler targeted the Jews as the enemies of the German nation and built up his dictatorship by capitalising on hatred towards the invented enemy.

The best enemy that can be offered to the German nation at this moment are the millions of Muslims that have, and continue to, flood into the country. Under the present circumstances, they will be a much easier and simpler target than Germany’s 20th-century Jewish population.

This is even further compounded by the fact that Muslims are not and do not consider themselves to be fully German and they now constitute a problem for the whole of the European continent. Indeed, with its methodology and cruelty, Germany’s containment of the Muslim population, despite seemingly being a huge problem throughout Europe, may prove easy. As for the other EU Member States, the “hunt for Muslims” will be a practice that they will follow with relief and hidden joy.

How far can a “hunt for Muslims” go, it will depend. A “soft” would be to repatriate all illegal immigrants of all kinds, block all new comers, close all cultural and religious Muslim centers and introduce strict birth controls.

The way forward regarding the political situation in Germany, and in Europe, is likely to happen. What is difficult to say is whether this will be the best or the worst-case scenario.

I wish the European countries could keep their unique identities without being accused of Racism, Islamophobia or bigotry.

No one fusses at all when Japan limits foreigners residency.

No white Europeans are moving to sub-Sahara Africa and when they did they were called racist colonizers. Same with Every place where Caucasians move.

It’s OK for other peoples to invade Caucasian homelands, but cultural appropriation and colonialism when whites enter their “domains” and try to assimilate?

It’s not racism or Islamophobia to want to protect your European, Christian homeland. There’s a plethora of Muslim countries other Muslims can go to.

Where? I’ve lived in Schwaebisch Hall (briefly), Staufen (briefly) and Heidelberg as well as Freiburg im Breisgau. Freiburg was by far my favorite. This was in the mid 90s long before the muslim infestation. Things are quite different there now from what I’ve read.

Im Schwäbischen. Im Herzen des Schwäbischen.

Whereas it sounds like you had more to do with the Gelbfießler.

Regards,

So, what is your take on the situation. I think, something must give, but what?

I'm actually more savvy about the U.S. political climate than about German politics, since I rarely watch t.v. and have cancelled all of my German newspaper subscriptions, preferring instead to nourish myself more selectively - namely via the Internet (like Free Republic), where European issues are usually discussed only from an American perspective.

On the other hand, my personal contacts here in Germany (coworkers) greatly outnumber my American contacts (solely family members, who are without exception foaming-at-the-mouth leftists). So, having said that:

The Germans are less shrill in promoting/maintaining leftist positions - maybe because they encounter less opposition here (no one has to totally sever relations with family members over political differences), since they're already much farther along the road towards total socialism, so it's considered "the norm."

On the other hand, I think that the mood could turn much more suddenly than in the U.S. When namely the Germans suddenly realize that their "bacon" is at risk (i.e., their govt. entitlements, company pensions, property rights), they might drop the façade of Gutmenschentum like a hot potato.

Geographic and demographic factors would also play a rôle: Unlike in the U.S., there aren't entire macro-regions here where the natives have already been displaced. Sure, there are conurbations like Berlin or other big cities where the foreign-born dominate - but not entire states like N. Mexico or southern CA. So the threat of balkanization is not as great as in America.

Regards,

It’s all irrelevant

Germany lost all it’s warrior genes and is now wimpland.

Darwin teaches that the weak genes yield to those that are stronger, more fit, adaptive. The process is survival of the fittest. White Germany is simply no longer fit.

Germany and Europe are already lost to the genetically stronger and adaptive stock moving north from Africa and the Asia. Neither has the will to adapt and survive

The author can’t see that what is happening is not what he thinks.

Thank you, Gentlemen. You pointed out the “little open secret” of the origins of WW 1 correctly :-)

However; I beg to differ on the question of how old Germany is: the German people was first mentioned by Tacitus in “Germania” around 95 A.D.
The Germanic tribes becoming a united realm did however evolve in the late 10th, 11th and early 12th centuries under the Ottonian and Salic Emperors, after the old Frankish empire - which had encompassed present-day France, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, Switzerland, Western Germany and northern Italy (last but not least) - had fallen apart in the late 9th century.

BTW, the French kingdom evolved just at roughy the same time, between the late 9th century and the final French victory over the Angevin Empire in 1214.

Only the Kingdom of England was somewhat faster in seeing the light of day - but then no-one on the Continent had somebody like the Venerable Bede, who invented the term “England”, using it first in his “Ecclesiastical history of the English People”.

Although it took until 937 for England to become a single kingdom, the term “English” as an idea, then as an ethnolinguistic and cultural term, had been coined more than two centuries earlier - by the aforementioned sagacious monk of Jarrow :-)

BTW: did you know that this term was used far more by the Allied propaganda machine than by the Nazis themselves?

The term had been used earlier far more often, during the era of Imperialism, that is, and it was applied more often to the nations of Europe whose power expanded throughout the world in their colonial empires.

Just a little annotation. No offense intended to anybody :-)

“However; I beg to differ on the question of how old Germany is: the German people was first mentioned by Tacitus in “Germania” around 95 A.D.”

There was no argument that the “German people” (more directly the core of “Germanic” speaking people) is very old and older than most nation states of Europe today.

The point I made was there was no unified nation-state of Germany until shortly before WWI, as far as history goes. The strictly German people were disunited among German princely states, Austria, areas conquered by Napolean and other spaces occupied by Germans but under some non-German ruler. That disunited state of Germans was one France and Britain sorely wished the German people had remained.

Why should the Germans - pre-WWI - have felt ethical or moral qualms or guilt at behaving no differently than the British, French, Russians and others had done in Europe for centuries? Why should what Napoleon conquered have remained as some inviolate status quo that if broken meant a rupture in a “balance of power”? Did “balance” really mean equity or parity, or just that Britain and France held the upper hand and that upper hand should not be diminished? Things did honestly look different, more than “wrong”, from a German perspective.

“BTW, the French kingdom evolved just at roughy the same time, between the late 9th century and the final French victory over the Angevin Empire in 1214.”

That was some 600 years before any whole state for the core German speaking peoples.

Bavaria isn't typical of Germany. Anything that comes out of there is likely to be rejected by the rest of the country.

I've heard it said that the ultimatum we gave to rump Yugoslavia (essentially Serbia) in the 1990s went far beyond what Austria-Hungary demanded of Serbia in 1914.

That "warrior genes" bit is bunk. People use it as a metaphor, but I hope nobody takes it seriously.

Very sorry for correcting you on this point, but the Holy Roman Empire had been predominantly the proto-nation-state of the German people, and yes, it was regarded as such by the Germans themselves. Countless German sources from the 11th to the 19th century can prove it.

Just in theory, it was not a “state of the Germans”, since it stood in the (theoretical) tradition of the supranational Ancient Roman Empire, but this didn’t stop it from being widely regarded as a German “state”.
Medieval sources from France and England as well as Italy and many other countries used the terms “German” and “Germany” and its equivalents liberally when talking of the HR Empire.

However, after the Thirty years’ War it went through a phase of disunity, especially with the fact that after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, every German prince was allowed to make his own foreign policy.

Still, the HRE stood together against the Turkish invasion in 1683, when Emperor Leopold I used the Estates of the Realm to rally support - but there was no such united stand against the incursions of the French other arch-enemy in the West :-)

Nonetheless, it was the Austrian-Prussian dualism with its conflicts of interests in the 18th century, which caused a structural crisis and eventually brought it down in 1806, when Napoleon came along (what is often forgotten: France was, at the time, and had been since 1648, the most populous country in Europe with the strongest economy).

And you are completely right about France having the upper hand on the Continent from 1648 to the fall of Napoleon. The dream of a newly united Germany was renewed, however, when N. had been defeated - but this time one across the line of popular sovereignty according to British - or even French (as per the ideas promulgated in the French revolution) - tradition. What they got, however, was a rehash of the princely absolutism of the years after the TYW...

A fascinating debate indeed. Thank you. And I am afraid that we really live in interesting times, as per the wise proverb - although it is AFAIK, contrary to received wisdom, not from China.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.