Interesting opinion piece in The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/04/angela-merkel-chancellor-far-right-voters

Her problems include:

Coalition talks that have dragged on for weeks to no avail. A government may not be formed until April.

The rise of AfD and a backlash against her immigration policies.

Brexit, which means the German tax payer will have to stump up more to fill the gap of Britain's EU payments.

Voter fatigue that eventually does for all long serving leaders.


Admittedly, Merkel has been written off before, but there does seem to be the feeling of a sea change over her leadership. It could be, like Britain's PM, that Merkel hangs on because there is no alternative Chancellor. That's never good for any country.

I freely admit to not being an expert on German politics, so what does everybody else think?

I would not write her off so quickly. As the article shows opinions might change on Merkel, but it also depends on who you exactly ask of course.

The problems are a bit imaginary in some aspects. Coalition talks dragging on might happen from time to time and are not always a sign of failling on Merkel's part. It depends on what is demanded from you in those talks. In the same sense Schultz kinda pushed Merkel into a corner by saying he would't form a government with her so she first went for alternative options. Now the SPD might give in, but if not there might be new elections.

Which brings us to voter fatigue. Not really I would say. While the 2017 CDU/CSU result wasn't great, it was roughly in line with that of 2005 and 2009 during which Merkel began as leader. 2013 was the outlier in voter share. So yes, relative to 2013 her popularity declined (her massive share also has to do with the FDP collapse in 2013 and lower turnout), but she didn't need her 2013 popularity in either 2005 or 2009. So unless she dives under those two years next time its hard to say if its really voter fatigue or just the undecided voters moving on to the next flavor of the month.

Speaking of fotm, the AfD. The majority of votes still went to parties with a pro-immigration stance. While blown up to be big it also just remains a single issue. It is important to put the size of the AfD into context. Even though it is now the third party in Germany, it really isn't that much bigger than the last three parties in Germany. Plus its easier to rise than to actually keep it together as the AfD has already shown. The AfD collected the populist semi right wing protest vote which is great for them. But if they won't get anything done and keep pumping out scandals while the next German government might work on some of the issues, what will happen to the AfD? The AfD isn't really coherent as you might have noticed, being run by seemingly sensible and intelligent people combined with barely in the closet Nazi sympathizers. The AfD just doesn't have the broader appeal (sure they got 12% of the vote, but this was the best they did under the amazing conditions presented to them) when getting PR like that and running on anti immigration, because a majority of Germans don't see them as a serious option (or are pro immigration). Even if the AfD got bigger, its still too toxic for the other parties. Plus with immigration winding down compared to what it was the previous Merkel term, will it remain such a prominent issue? Difficult questions, but its hard to see the AfD evolve beyond the protest platform being run the way it is and already busy shedding its reasonable elements it got on board for the 2017 election.

As for Brexit and EU payments? That's not a Merkel issue, its a Germany/EU issue. Its unavoidable no matter who's in charge. Sure it might dent her popularity for the next elections depending on how it unfolds, but most Germans are still pro EU.

So what I think? The writer of the article has a very short term memory. Merkel's 2013 popularity was exceptional, not her 2017 results. Sure its historically 'low', but that's because of issues such as overall turnout. Practically speaking she did in line with her 2005 and 2009 electoral victories. So why does she as the article says need to win back far right voters? Yes some might have been on her side in 2013, but she didn't need them in 2005, 2009 or 2017 as it turns out. If she forms a government with the SPD what use are those far right voters?

A far riskier prospect to her survival is internal friction in the CDU/CSU, not what the AfD or their voters think.

Good post Disciple.

In reply to your point about the AfD, I'll say this:

UKIP has shown us that even a party with small support, and minimal representation in parliament(or the German version)

can still shape the political narrative. UKIP succeeded in panicking the British elite into a EU referendum and by shifting focus onto immigration.

I don't like Farage, but if you measure a politician's success by what he achives, then Farage is one of the most influential European politicians since 1945.

AfD don't need to win a majority. If they can control the narrative and get people talking about what they want to talk about i.e immigration,

then in a sense, they have already 'won.'

And we see this happening across all of Europe with the mainstream parties - France being a good example.

Personally, I think Merkel will limp on for the sole reason there is nobody else, which is a terrible position for any democracy to find itself in

But you hit the nail on the head though, the AfD already controlled the narrative and this is what they managed in voter shares in a country with an electoral system miles easier to succeed in than the UK. 12% is what they got in the absolute 'best' circumstances with a large amount of refugees in the 2013-2017 years and the belief in a populist spring. Unless all of Syria decides to come over now, how will the AfD top that beneficial PR (to them) these past years?

Plus UKIP had a much much easier opponent to flog votes with the EU. While the AfD has to depend on the nebelous concept of immigration that is significantly down compared to a few years ago. While UKIP could combine immigration, sovereignity and economic issues in a dark EU 'cloud' so to speak, the AfD can't. Immigration is pretty much single issue and they got their popularity from the immigration 'wave'. But that wave is over and the issue will be slowly pushed back while other issues come forward. Plus the EU would be an omnipresent issue for UKIP to bang on about if remain had won, but with decent policies immigration/integration doesn't have to be a permanent issue.

Plus you have to take into account the media enviroment which is completely different as well as the public opinion. Immigration isn't nearly as divisive in Germany as the EU is in the UK. Sure its big, but not approaching an almost 50-50 split big. Furthermore while Farage lies a lot and is in general a less than pleasent person, he isn't nearly as bad as the public faces of the AfD. Some of whom include the guy who thinks Germany should be proud of their massive war crime comitting Wehrmacht past.

The AfD isn't comparable to UKIP but more the Front National and Wilders. Both around for years if not decades with success going up and down, but always just out of reach of true coherent platforms and power due to the pervasive stink around them for most voters. Yeah they might be annoying to have around for other parties, but it shows you can live with them without them getting too much in the way so to speak.

On the note of their being nobody else, there are, just none who manage to pull in 1/3 of the popular vote. Merkel is still the most popular candidate by far even though Schultz was seemingly a serious contender for a while. If Merkel gets in for another four years its because that's what the voters wanted, they had other options to vote for, she is the best choice for the CDU/CSU and still pretty popular by most proportional representation democracies standards. Our PM isn't nearly as popular as Merkel is for example in voter share.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and btw your poll might end up badly representing off topic due to how the poll is phrased and the title is, as people answering no based on the title would have to say yes based on the poll question. Mistakes are likely to be made in that.

If UKIP didn't share an anti-EU stance with some fairly major Tory party members, politicians and donors, where they potentially provide the margin between getting power and not, then they wouldn't even be a blip on the radar.

Farage is a nobody, propelled to 'fame' by Tory euro-skeptics and the BBC's attempts to give air time to all view points, regardless of merit. He's pretty much ignored in the EU and only of interest to the UK media when he agrees with them and can be trotted out to say something. He's got a single issue, and now that it's somehow gone his way he's completely irrelevant again.

His influence, here, is because he became a totem for the anti-EU movement; he's not provided anything other than some populist sound bits and smug pictures. He's provided no useful guidance, or policies, or anything.

Oh how we wants to be a somebody.


On the other hand, I don't see Merkel going anywhere.

He's supplied buckets of racism and bigotry.

Don't forget that.

Yeah, she has been inpower a very long time, has aot of baggage but also knows Europe very well too.

Id say she should however choose a time to bow out gracefully than cling on to power by her fingernails. Every poetical career comes to a end at some point, unless your basically a dictator.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Oh and btw your poll might end up badly representing off topic due to how the poll is phrased and the title is, as people answering no based on the title would have to say yes based on the poll question. Mistakes are likely to be made in that.

I have nearly made that mistake, this is very, very poor choice of wording both title and poll question...

On the topic itself - it is very important to look not only at inner German politics, but the overall EU landscape. In the last years, Merkel was unformal EU "backseat" leader, but that is largely comming to end (maybe not immediate, but still). One thing about migration crisis that "general left wing" supporters ignore is that it isn't going away anytime soon and 10-15% of general population feeling unrest about it is a huuuge destabilising factor. Not by "voting power" but by perpetual public debate power which can, in turn, flip everything upside down, given enough time. Combined with huge symptoms of EU integrity degrading (Brexit; Germany coalition stall; silliness of Shultz pushing 7th article vote against Poland; general Germany+France arogance towards smaller central and eastern european members (Nord Stream 2 "backstabbing" is huge deal in the east)) is a completely different landscape than what we had 5-10-15 years ago. Merkel's "iron grip" on EU is no longer a thing and pretty much everyone, including her coalition members, see that. It is not something one recovery from by simple "political games", but by having a clear and most importantly, achievable plan.
But what last couple of years of EU history shown vividly is lack of any real decision making power. EU is at the very best stagnant if not degrading concept altogether.

 jhe90 wrote:
Yeah, she has been inpower a very long time, has aot of baggage but also knows Europe very well too.

Id say she should however choose a time to bow out gracefully than cling on to power by her fingernails. Every poetical career comes to a end at some point, unless your basically a dictator.

She might be the 'best' leader in Europe/the EU atm going off experience and ability, which is valuable in itself. It gives a bit of stability to Germany as well.

IDK if or when she would choose to bow out of politics. While she appears as a grey, boring person she seems to have a strong sense of duty to Germany and what she believes is best for Germany. In part that could cloud her vision to a possible successors, but she might have a point n believing she should stay because she currently is the best option.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
Yeah, she has been inpower a very long time, has aot of baggage but also knows Europe very well too.

Id say she should however choose a time to bow out gracefully than cling on to power by her fingernails. Every poetical career comes to a end at some point, unless your basically a dictator.

She might be the 'best' leader in Europe/the EU atm going off experience and ability, which is valuable in itself. It gives a bit of stability to Germany as well.

IDK if or when she would choose to bow out of politics. While she appears as a grey, boring person she seems to have a strong sense of duty to Germany and what she believes is best for Germany. In part that could cloud her vision to a possible successors, but she might have a point n believing she should stay because she currently is the best option.

Tue, but is there anyone to replace her? or even can? she cannot stay forever, they do need to try and build new leaders. new leaders who represent Germany now, Not just Merkil.

She may be best option but she also has immense baggage is taking its toll, the right is rising under her leadership higher than ever before, there almost second or third in German parliament, they not been higher since start of republic, and elements across the entire of more left leaning Europe. the longer shee stays in power, how much higher will they go, or even take Parliment majority.

Right nearly took Austrias president at one point, France was seeing a powerful Le pen.

Her history, and reputation she leave smay be better if she does bow out rather than be pushed or lose.

Just to add one point quickly, as some of the post showed up while I was writing my reply:

many of posters here fall in one simple trap - up untill very recently majority of ruling parties in EU countries were basically the same large faction. This translated to something of a "net" of power, concentrating on Merkel personally. Think of it as a local "supporting states" all over europe, so we tended to see single persons as "major players". UKiP and AfD might be small parties within their respective countries, but every EU country has similiar parties on the rise for a some time now. By very nature of those parties, they are divided, so there is no "net of international supporters" behind any single person representing such "alternative" view on EU, but in overall picture it is a significant voice all over Europe. So it is better to not focus on single individuals, but look at the reasons why people vote for such movements and if anything have been done to change the state of things behind those reasons. IMHO nothing EU did in the last 5 years changed anything that could hold that trend.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
Yeah, she has been inpower a very long time, has aot of baggage but also knows Europe very well too.

Id say she should however choose a time to bow out gracefully than cling on to power by her fingernails. Every poetical career comes to a end at some point, unless your basically a dictator.

She might be the 'best' leader in Europe/the EU atm going off experience and ability, which is valuable in itself. It gives a bit of stability to Germany as well.

IDK if or when she would choose to bow out of politics. While she appears as a grey, boring person she seems to have a strong sense of duty to Germany and what she believes is best for Germany. In part that could cloud her vision to a possible successors, but she might have a point n believing she should stay because she currently is the best option.

Tue, but is there anyone to replace her? or even can? she cannot stay forever, they do need to try and build new leaders. new leaders who represent Germany now, Not just Merkil.

She may be best option but she also has immense baggage is taking its toll, the right is rising under her leadership higher than ever before, there almost second or third in German parliament, they not been higher since start of republic, and elements across the entire of more left leaning Europe. the longer shee stays in power, how much higher will they go, or even take Parliment majority.

Right nearly took Austrias president at one point, France was seeing a powerful Le pen.

Her history, and reputation she leave smay be better if she does bow out rather than be pushed or lose.

A few things, I don't believe she is grooming a successor as she didn't/doesn't believe it is necessary yet. But she would pick the successor with her party based on electoral result, its unlikely the CDU/CSU will be dethroned quickly. So it will likely be someone quite similar to her.

The AfD is the third party, but third isn't that significant as the three smallest parties are only slightly smaller than the AfD. I wouldn't expect a more significant rise in the far right wing however, as this really was there moment. There are limits to how far an organization like the AfD can get, keeping in mind that the CDU/CSU is already pretty right themselves in many issues. The far-right will have its limits. Expecting a parliamentary majority in the near future is extremely unlikely seeing as what the AfD represents to most Germans.

Taking into account that Austria has never really faced up to its far right and Nazi past the public faux pas is not as pervasive there. The Le Pens have had two shots now and were defeated. A argument is to be made that this moment too represented the best conditions for Le Pen and she lost. While I'm not going to claim with a 100% certainty that its never going to happen, I think that 2017 represented somewhat of a high water mark for the far right in Europe based on circumstances outside their power. I can always be wrong however, just my view.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
Just to add one point quickly, as some of the post showed up while I was writing my reply:

many of posters here fall in one simple trap - up untill very recently majority of ruling parties in EU countries were basically the same large faction. This translated to something of a "net" of power, concentrating on Merkel personally. Think of it as a local "supporting states" all over europe, so we tended to see single persons as "major players". UKiP and AfD might be small parties within their respective countries, but every EU country has similiar parties on the rise for a some time now. By very nature of those parties, they are divided, so there is no "net of international supporters" behind any single person representing such "alternative" view on EU, but in overall picture it is a significant voice all over Europe. So it is better to not focus on single individuals, but look at the reasons why people vote for such movements and if anything have been done to change the state of things behind those reasons. IMHO nothing EU did in the last 5 years changed anything that could hold that trend.

Problem for most of those parties is that they also contain significant far right/populist sentiments that can only carry them so far and are inherently divisive. They are reactionary/protests politics. They have been doing (marginally) well since the 2000's. And the EU can do very little against these parties mainly because their main focus is on domestic politics. Defeating Le Pen, Wilders and the AfD will never be through the efforts of the EU as the EU is just a side project to them. Their main focus is fighting for the nationalistic socio-cultural issues.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Problem for most of those parties is that they also contain significant far right/populist sentiments that can only carry them so far and are inherently divisive. They are reactionary/protests politics. They have been doing (marginally) well since the 2000's. And the EU can do very little against these parties mainly because their main focus is on domestic politics. Defeating Le Pen, Wilders and the AfD will never be through the efforts of the EU as the EU is just a side project to them. Their main focus is fighting for the nationalistic socio-cultural issues.

Let me reiterate, as you missed the point I was making and answered in a completely unrelated direction. Don't focus at parties, don't focus on "big names", focus on voters instead. Those are real people with their personalities, fears, worries, needs and views. Word "populists" is pretty much as devalued as "nazi" and "democracy" nowadays, with "populists" meaning pretty much the same as "other side of the political fence, which doesn't uphold 'our' or 'mainstream' view". Calling those voters "susceptible to populism" is not going to change that Brexit happened because of such neglected voters, Trump happened because such neglected voters, Orban happened because of such neglected voters and Le Pen nearly happened, Hofer nearly happened. In Poland, last presidential elections have turned from "pretty boring, 99% sure reelection with >60% voters backing reelection" to complete turnout of both presidential and parliamentary power by rise of fresh 10% "third party" during electorial period, exactly because pro EU Tusk's, which is now so called president of EU, actively neglected and marginalised nearly 40% of voters. And major west countries are now going down exactly the same road. Uncontent voters don't simply "go away" when you close your eyes and call them populists. What is "enlightened" and what is "populist" doesn't really matter in true democracies unless those "enlightened" view trully makes people's lives better in a way that is felt by them and can be "sold" during campaigns. Sadly, this is how world works. And in the last 5 years EU hasn't address anything, that pushes those voters into "populists fandom".

One more thing - pretty much noone in this thread has any real knowledge on how eastern and central EU members change the EU landscape after Brexit. You do realise, that after Brexit it is Weimar Triangle relations that define what will happen next?

^^ The above is correct except that it isn't the EU's role to address the concerns of "populist neglected voters" it is the role of the individual countries' governments to do so.

To get back to the main topic.. Merkel of course will go away eventually, because (to quote Voltaire, "All things fall") and also because at some point she probably will want to retire and live on her farm or whatever.

However I do not think that time is yet. For one thing, there are no very good contenders at the moment.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
^^ The above is correct except that it isn't the EU's role to address the concerns of "populist neglected voters" it is the role of the individual countries' governments to do so.

To get back to the main topic.. Merkel of course will go away eventually, because (to quote Voltaire, "All things fall") and also because at some point she probably will want to retire and live on her farm or whatever.

However I do not think that time is yet. For one thing, there are no very good contenders at the moment.

Not when huge amount of new laws in "new" or "poorer" EU countries during last decade have been introduced because EU demands standarisation and unification or straigt up "colony style" governing, even if it's against particular country interests. We had a few of large cases of such behavior in EU in the last decade, Greece's Syriza failure case being the biggest one.

And this is all "on topic", because, as I tried to point out, German inner politics isn't really inner to Germany. It is based on Germany role within EU and Merkel's ability to enforce German POV within EU. And this power is diminishing steadily for at least couple of years now. This is the mayor reason why coalition talks are prolonging. Looking just at German politics cannot give satisfactory answers to why there is no govermnent formed already. With just migration problem alone, German central government cannot satisfy some of Land-states that are opposing Merkel politics, because EU relocation politic was an utter failure. You simply cannot separate EU politics from any single EU country inner politics anymore.

"Having no good contenders" isn't realy any arguement as even recent history has shown, that such contenders repeatedly emerge in last moments and destabilise even such well established countries as Britain or US. At this moment only Germany Lands Federation structure is what is holding this stale from having greater destabilising influence on Germany situation. But inability to form a goverment lands on Merkels account, not opposition or coalition. Historically speaking, Germans always wanted and backed strong leaders. Last couple of years shows, that Merkel is no longer a strong leader. As soon as a "good enough" contender emerges, she's out. Schultzes position pretty much hinges right now on his "pet project" of 7th article vote against Poland (again, EU politics meaning a lot to inner German politics). If this vote fails he shows pretty much how weak he, his wing in EU and Germany are right now...

nou wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Problem for most of those parties is that they also contain significant far right/populist sentiments that can only carry them so far and are inherently divisive. They are reactionary/protests politics. They have been doing (marginally) well since the 2000's. And the EU can do very little against these parties mainly because their main focus is on domestic politics. Defeating Le Pen, Wilders and the AfD will never be through the efforts of the EU as the EU is just a side project to them. Their main focus is fighting for the nationalistic socio-cultural issues.

Let me reiterate, as you missed the point I was making and answered in a completely unrelated direction. Don't focus at parties, don't focus on "big names", focus on voters instead. Those are real people with their personalities, fears, worries, needs and views. Word "populists" is pretty much as devalued as "nazi" and "democracy" nowadays, with "populists" meaning pretty much the same as "other side of the political fence, which doesn't uphold 'our' or 'mainstream' view". Calling those voters "susceptible to populism" is not going to change that Brexit happened because of such neglected voters, Trump happened because such neglected voters, Orban happened because of such neglected voters and Le Pen nearly happened, Hofer nearly happened. In Poland, last presidential elections have turned from "pretty boring, 99% sure reelection with >60% voters backing reelection" to complete turnout of both presidential and parliamentary power by rise of fresh 10% "third party" during electorial period, exactly because pro EU Tusk's, which is now so called president of EU, actively neglected and marginalised nearly 40% of voters. And major west countries are now going down exactly the same road. Uncontent voters don't simply "go away" when you close your eyes and call them populists. What is "enlightened" and what is "populist" doesn't really matter in true democracies unless those "enlightened" view trully makes people's lives better in a way that is felt by them and can be "sold" during campaigns. Sadly, this is how world works. And in the last 5 years EU hasn't address anything, that pushes those voters into "populists fandom".

One more thing - pretty much noone in this thread has any real knowledge on how eastern and central EU members change the EU landscape after Brexit. You do realise, that after Brexit it is Weimar Triangle relations that define what will happen next?

I didn't miss the point, I was explaining that the parties these people vote for are populist/right wing parties that aren't really focused on the EU. As I said earlier, people voting for these parties are mainly doing so out of protest and not necessarily genuine belief as many of these parties have very incoherent platforms. As such people not happy with the EU have no one to vote for, as even Le Pen, Wilders and the AfD grudgingly put up with the EU or are whishy washy when it comes to a Nexit, Frexit or Dexit because they see its not popular enough. They keep backtracking and reforming their stances on the EU on a continuous basis because they are populist (its expected Le Pen is abandoning leaving the EU as a campaign platform after her loss).

I'm not accusing voters of falling pray to populism, on the contrary, populism is used to draw in everyone as a protest vote. Most of them are sensible enough to recognize that the AfD, Wilders or Le Pen have no real platform that would work in an economical or even legal sense. But things such as Trump voters just prove that people do it in protest, sticking up the middle finger to the 'establishment', but there is some lack of recognition that those policies are unworkable. Yet people like Le Pen and Wilders are the establishment, they are relatively wealthy people with long long careers in politics.

The problem is that our 'mainstream' parties don't give people a correct outlet. But my point was that neither do the populist/far right parties. They scream what sounds nice because it will attract everyone sick of the 'mainstream' in a kind of "that will show them". But in the end they won't offer the solution to those people either. On the EU these parties aren't better than others, the Front National already admitted there will be no Frexit and neither the AfD or Wilders would get the popular support (the AfD isn't even clearly pro Dexit). So yes, focus on the voters, but then what? In Western Europe these voters don't have real options and these populist parties willingly obfuscate their true viewpoints to get votes.

I'm not calling the voters populists, that would be strange as a populist is essentially just a type of politician, not really a run of the mill voter. Also being a 'populist' and 'enlightened' isn't necessarily a dichotomy, it just depends on what kind of brand of populism you're espousing. But the brand of populism in Europe is focused on fear and 'culture wars', which isn't very enlightened imo. Yet you missed my key point, namely that the EU can do very little on this front, as its mainly focused on domestic politics and not EU politics.

I wouldn't accuse others of having no knowledge of how the landscape is going to change. True Poland is gaining in importance, but Poland and the UK were frequently in the same corner interest and alliance wise. So some things change and others stay the same. Poland loses some with Brexit but might regain elsewhere as the prominent Eastern European EU leader. Its also going to be interesting how the EP is going to be redivided based on Brexit. But I wouldn't just say that the Weimar Triangle will now be the decider from now on. There are still significant power blocks that don't necessarily have to include Poland. It all depends on how Poland plays its hand.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
But you hit the nail on the head though, the AfD already controlled the narrative and this is what they managed in voter shares in a country with an electoral system miles easier to succeed in than the UK. 12% is what they got in the absolute 'best' circumstances with a large amount of refugees in the 2013-2017 years and the belief in a populist spring. Unless all of Syria decides to come over now, how will the AfD top that beneficial PR (to them) these past years?

Plus UKIP had a much much easier opponent to flog votes with the EU. While the AfD has to depend on the nebelous concept of immigration that is significantly down compared to a few years ago. While UKIP could combine immigration, sovereignity and economic issues in a dark EU 'cloud' so to speak, the AfD can't. Immigration is pretty much single issue and they got their popularity from the immigration 'wave'. But that wave is over and the issue will be slowly pushed back while other issues come forward. Plus the EU would be an omnipresent issue for UKIP to bang on about if remain had won, but with decent policies immigration/integration doesn't have to be a permanent issue.

Plus you have to take into account the media enviroment which is completely different as well as the public opinion. Immigration isn't nearly as divisive in Germany as the EU is in the UK. Sure its big, but not approaching an almost 50-50 split big. Furthermore while Farage lies a lot and is in general a less than pleasent person, he isn't nearly as bad as the public faces of the AfD. Some of whom include the guy who thinks Germany should be proud of their massive war crime comitting Wehrmacht past.

The AfD isn't comparable to UKIP but more the Front National and Wilders. Both around for years if not decades with success going up and down, but always just out of reach of true coherent platforms and power due to the pervasive stink around them for most voters. Yeah they might be annoying to have around for other parties, but it shows you can live with them without them getting too much in the way so to speak.

On the note of their being nobody else, there are, just none who manage to pull in 1/3 of the popular vote. Merkel is still the most popular candidate by far even though Schultz was seemingly a serious contender for a while. If Merkel gets in for another four years its because that's what the voters wanted, they had other options to vote for, she is the best choice for the CDU/CSU and still pretty popular by most proportional representation democracies standards. Our PM isn't nearly as popular as Merkel is for example in voter share.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and btw your poll might end up badly representing off topic due to how the poll is phrased and the title is, as people answering no based on the title would have to say yes based on the poll question. Mistakes are likely to be made in that.

You are correct on the last part, I voted no meaning that her time isn't up

Fake news poll

nou wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
^^ The above is correct except that it isn't the EU's role to address the concerns of "populist neglected voters" it is the role of the individual countries' governments to do so.

To get back to the main topic.. Merkel of course will go away eventually, because (to quote Voltaire, "All things fall") and also because at some point she probably will want to retire and live on her farm or whatever.

However I do not think that time is yet. For one thing, there are no very good contenders at the moment.

Not when huge amount of new laws in "new" or "poorer" EU countries during last decade have been introduced because EU demands standarisation and unification or straigt up "colony style" governing, even if it's against particular country interests. We had a few of large cases of such behavior in EU in the last decade, Greece's Syriza failure case being the biggest one.

And this is all "on topic", because, as I tried to point out, German inner politics isn't really inner to Germany. It is based on Germany role within EU and Merkel's ability to enforce German POV within EU. And this power is diminishing steadily for at least couple of years now. This is the mayor reason why coalition talks are prolonging. Looking just at German politics cannot give satisfactory answers to why there is no govermnent formed already. With just migration problem alone, German central government cannot satisfy some of Land-states that are opposing Merkel politics, because EU relocation politic was an utter failure. You simply cannot separate EU politics from any single EU country inner politics anymore.

"Having no good contenders" isn't realy any arguement as even recent history has shown, that such contenders repeatedly emerge in last moments and destabilise even such well established countries as Britain or US. At this moment only Germany Lands Federation structure is what is holding this stale from having greater destabilising influence on Germany situation. But inability to form a goverment lands on Merkels account, not opposition or coalition. Historically speaking, Germans always wanted and backed strong leaders. Last couple of years shows, that Merkel is no longer a strong leader. As soon as a "good enough" contender emerges, she's out. Schultzes position pretty much hinges right now on his "pet project" of 7th article vote against Poland (again, EU politics meaning a lot to inner German politics). If this vote fails he shows pretty much how weak he, his wing in EU and Germany are right now...

Well standardisation and unification make sense seeing as how its supposed to be a single market. Significant flaws in implementation aside the EU could only function as a political entity if you take out that chunk of importance to the single market. Greece is a very divisive case however, seeing as that both the EU and Greece share a portion of the blame.

I'm curious, why do you think German power in the EU is declining? Also the reason coalition talks are prolonging is not the EU, the Jamaica coalition failed because of other policy differences. Now between the SPD and CDU/CSU it will be a significant bone of contention, yet they already governed together the past four years. The EU is important in talks, but not the critical issue at the moment. Also yes the EU relocation policy failed, but in part because some countries absolutely refused to participate in helping refugees. In the end Merkel thought she did what was best, and really there weren't many options to stop the refugees from coming to Europe, forcing them out would be abominable.

Actually recent history shows that those contenders really aren't good contenders because they are in it for themselves. Nothing done so far has helped alleviate the problems facing the 'regular guy' (hell the only US 'succes' was the tax reform). They aren't good contenders exactly because they are populists, they lie and change positions so often that they have no coherent policies to actually help and show no interest to do so once they have succeeded.

Yes, if Merkel can't form a government it is on her. Yet there isn't really anyone in the wings to replace her yet, so if it came to another election she would likely be running and win again, getting stuck in the same mess. Another Merkel government is realistically and electorally seemingly the only way forward. She would be out after the next term in that situation. Also historically wanted and backed strong leaders? There are only a few German chancellors after 1945 that I would term as 'strong', its hardly "historical" if we exclude Bismarck and Hitler (and then "backed" is a seriously lacking term for how they acquired power).

Schultz already emerged as a contender for a while in the run up to the elections before going down, it won't hinge on Article 7, as its doomed to fail on account of Hungary anyway. So when the Article 7 vote fails it won't be seen as weakness, everyone knew it would anyone. The Article 7 vote was called as a signal to Poland, a fully symbolic move.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

nou wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Problem for most of those parties is that they also contain significant far right/populist sentiments that can only carry them so far and are inherently divisive. They are reactionary/protests politics. They have been doing (marginally) well since the 2000's. And the EU can do very little against these parties mainly because their main focus is on domestic politics. Defeating Le Pen, Wilders and the AfD will never be through the efforts of the EU as the EU is just a side project to them. Their main focus is fighting for the nationalistic socio-cultural issues.

Let me reiterate, as you missed the point I was making and answered in a completely unrelated direction. Don't focus at parties, don't focus on "big names", focus on voters instead. Those are real people with their personalities, fears, worries, needs and views. Word "populists" is pretty much as devalued as "nazi" and "democracy" nowadays, with "populists" meaning pretty much the same as "other side of the political fence, which doesn't uphold 'our' or 'mainstream' view". Calling those voters "susceptible to populism" is not going to change that Brexit happened because of such neglected voters, Trump happened because such neglected voters, Orban happened because of such neglected voters and Le Pen nearly happened, Hofer nearly happened. In Poland, last presidential elections have turned from "pretty boring, 99% sure reelection with >60% voters backing reelection" to complete turnout of both presidential and parliamentary power by rise of fresh 10% "third party" during electorial period, exactly because pro EU Tusk's, which is now so called president of EU, actively neglected and marginalised nearly 40% of voters. And major west countries are now going down exactly the same road. Uncontent voters don't simply "go away" when you close your eyes and call them populists. What is "enlightened" and what is "populist" doesn't really matter in true democracies unless those "enlightened" view trully makes people's lives better in a way that is felt by them and can be "sold" during campaigns. Sadly, this is how world works. And in the last 5 years EU hasn't address anything, that pushes those voters into "populists fandom".

One more thing - pretty much noone in this thread has any real knowledge on how eastern and central EU members change the EU landscape after Brexit. You do realise, that after Brexit it is Weimar Triangle relations that define what will happen next?

I didn't miss the point, I was explaining that the parties these people vote for are populist/right wing parties that aren't really focused on the EU. As I said earlier, people voting for these parties are mainly doing so out of protest and not necessarily genuine belief as many of these parties have very incoherent platforms. As such people not happy with the EU have no one to vote for, as even Le Pen, Wilders and the AfD grudgingly put up with the EU or are whishy washy when it comes to a Nexit, Frexit or Dexit because they see its not popular enough. They keep backtracking and reforming their stances on the EU on a continuous basis because they are populist (its expected Le Pen is abandoning leaving the EU as a campaign platform after her loss).

I'm not accusing voters of falling pray to populism, on the contrary, populism is used to draw in everyone as a protest vote. Most of them are sensible enough to recognize that the AfD, Wilders or Le Pen have no real platform that would work in an economical or even legal sense. But things such as Trump voters just prove that people do it in protest, sticking up the middle finger to the 'establishment', but the lack of recognition that those policies are unworkable. Yet people like Le Pen and Wilders are the establishment, they are relatively wealthy people with long long careers in politics.

The problem is that our 'mainstream' parties don't give people a correct outlet. But my point was that neither do the populist/far right parties. They scream what sounds nice because it will attract everyone sick of the 'mainstream' in a kind of "that will show them". But in the end they won't offer the solution to those people either. On the EU these parties aren't better than others, the Front National already admitted there will be no Frexit and neither the AfD or Wilders wouldn't get the popular support. So yes, focus on the voters, but then what? In Western Europe these voters don't have real options and these populist parties willingly obfuscate their true viewpoints to get votes.

I'm not calling the voters populists, that would be strange as a populist is essentially just a type of politician, not really a run of the mill voter. Also being a 'populist' and 'enlightened' isn't necessarily a dichotomy, it just depends on what kind of brand of populism you're espousing. But the brand of populism in Europe is focused on fear and 'culture wars', which isn't very enlightened imo. Yet you missed my key point, namely that the EU can do very little on this front, as its mainly focused on domestic politics and not EU politics.

I have probably addressed some of our missunderstandings in my post to Killkrazy while you were writing yours... Answering directly - "But things such as Trump voters just prove that people do it in protest, sticking up the middle finger to the 'establishment', but the lack of recognition that those policies are unworkable." isn't true. Trump won, because US establishment neglected huge part of population, focusing only on "big cities problems" and mainstream narration blaming a lot of social issues on mythical "opressive white man", while in reality, most white men in the US were in a grip of the same structural problems other social groups are having. And Trump election is saying "enough is enough" by true population majority that have been blamed for everything. That is some serious fault of Obama's presidency to allow such blaming to grow. And such situations are repeating in the EU, just on different grounds. All your posts are very west-centric. But what is really going on within EU is brewing pretty much in central and eastern Europe. We had a long lasting war in Ukraine, just "right next door", and pretty much no western mainstream media used a word "war" for it. For eastern block countries Russian agression is not an imaginary possibility, but real fear, much stronger than migration problems. Did you knew, that Poland gave more than 1mln of Ukrainians work visas but is now being threaten by Schultz about not taking in Afrikan work migration in just because west prefers to call Marocans, Algerians and other migrants "war refugees"? Or that Nord Stream 2 and "gas wars/unified european energetic policy" are center of political focus for central european countries and voters in those countries? Our current governing party is being called populist and even fascist by pretty much all left-wing media in EU, despite it being pretty much as centric as previous governing party, it is just not pro-Germany (but is pro-EU, despite all being said about them). West-East tensions in EU have never been so strong as they are after Brexit. If last elections in Poland had different results, UE relocation treaty would pass, because our last government did everything Mekel wanted them to do (this is why Tusk is now president of EU) and Merkel would have a lot easier time creating her goverment right now.

It is not "local goverment duty" to manage clusterfeths and unrests that are made on highest levels of EU or Germany governments and influence everyone in Europe. We are too strongly interconnected to treat Farage, Le Pen, Orban or Kaczyński merely as "local aberrations". But a lot of "big names" on european scene still thinks, that they can "rule", not "govern"...

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

nou wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
^^ The above is correct except that it isn't the EU's role to address the concerns of "populist neglected voters" it is the role of the individual countries' governments to do so.

To get back to the main topic.. Merkel of course will go away eventually, because (to quote Voltaire, "All things fall") and also because at some point she probably will want to retire and live on her farm or whatever.

However I do not think that time is yet. For one thing, there are no very good contenders at the moment.

Not when huge amount of new laws in "new" or "poorer" EU countries during last decade have been introduced because EU demands standarisation and unification or straigt up "colony style" governing, even if it's against particular country interests. We had a few of large cases of such behavior in EU in the last decade, Greece's Syriza failure case being the biggest one.

And this is all "on topic", because, as I tried to point out, German inner politics isn't really inner to Germany. It is based on Germany role within EU and Merkel's ability to enforce German POV within EU. And this power is diminishing steadily for at least couple of years now. This is the mayor reason why coalition talks are prolonging. Looking just at German politics cannot give satisfactory answers to why there is no govermnent formed already. With just migration problem alone, German central government cannot satisfy some of Land-states that are opposing Merkel politics, because EU relocation politic was an utter failure. You simply cannot separate EU politics from any single EU country inner politics anymore.

"Having no good contenders" isn't realy any arguement as even recent history has shown, that such contenders repeatedly emerge in last moments and destabilise even such well established countries as Britain or US. At this moment only Germany Lands Federation structure is what is holding this stale from having greater destabilising influence on Germany situation. But inability to form a goverment lands on Merkels account, not opposition or coalition. Historically speaking, Germans always wanted and backed strong leaders. Last couple of years shows, that Merkel is no longer a strong leader. As soon as a "good enough" contender emerges, she's out. Schultzes position pretty much hinges right now on his "pet project" of 7th article vote against Poland (again, EU politics meaning a lot to inner German politics). If this vote fails he shows pretty much how weak he, his wing in EU and Germany are right now...

Well standardisation and unification make sense seeing as how its supposed to be a single market. Significant flaws in implementation aside the EU could only function as a political entity if you take out that chunk of importance to the single market. Greece is a very divisive case however, seeing as that both the EU and Greece share a portion of the blame.

I'm curious, why do you think German power in the EU is declining? Also the reason coalition talks are prolonging is not the EU, the Jamaica coalition failed because of other policy differences. Now between the SPD and CDU/CSU it will be a significant bone of contention, yet they already governed together the past four years. The EU is important in talks, but not the critical issue at the moment. Also yes the EU relocation policy failed, but in part because some countries absolutely refused to participate in helping refugees. In the end Merkel thought she did what was best, and really there weren't many options to stop the refugees from coming to Europe, forcing them out would be abominable.

Actually recent history shows that those contenders really aren't good contenders because they are in it for themselves. Nothing done so far has helped alleviate the problems facing the 'regular guy' (hell the only US 'succes' was the tax reform). They aren't good contenders exactly because they are populists, they lie and change positions so often that they have no coherent policies to actually help and show no interest to do so once they have succeeded.

Yes, if Merkel can't form a government it is on her. Yet there isn't really anyone in the wings to replace her yet, so if it came to another election she would likely be running and win again, getting stuck in the same mess. Another Merkel government is realistically and electorally seemingly the only way forward. She would be out after the next term in that situation. Also historically wanted and backed strong leaders? There are only a few German chancellors after 1945 that I would term as 'strong', its hardly "historical" if we exclude Bismarck and Hitler (and then "backed" is a seriously lacking term for how they acquired power).

Schultz already emerged as a contender for a while in the run up to the elections before going down, it won't hinge on Article 7, as its doomed to fail on account of Hungary anyway. So when the Article 7 vote fails it won't be seen as weakness, everyone knew it would anyone. The Article 7 vote was called as a signal to Poland, a fully symbolic move.

Why Germany power is declining? Have you heard about Chinese bailing out Deutche Bank and how German export subsidising works? I have already answered why Poland didn't took any "refugees" in (but is significantly helping "on site", which have been praised even by Syrian based institutions). Article 7 failure is yet another show of lack of real EU power to actually come to consensus. It started with Orban a long time ago, even then, against a much smaller country EU showed that it is structurally inefficient in actual governing. Numbers from relocation program, even within participating countries showed by Frontex and Eurostat are pretty much sign admition, that this problem has never been adressed in any rational or functional form. You might want to read into this artice from Le Figaro http://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/monde/2017/12/21/31002-20171221ARTFIG00266-l-injustice-faite-a-la-pologne-un-deni-de-democratie.php to see why there is factual "Europe of two speeds" or more precisely "two standards" and why Eastern and Central european countries won't accept German and French "hegemony" for much longer. Up untill two years ago, Germany had pretty much a 30mln worth of liegeman in form of Polish government, but now it has 30mln of competition. What you wrote about standarisation of EU laws shows how little you actually know about "minutiae" of eastern accession to EU structures. One example - French and Germany shipyards were government backed at the very same time Polish shipyards were closed because "illegal state backing". If you won't dig deeper into last 25 years of history of Eastern Europe you're pretty much doomed to fail understanding why Central and Eastern European countries don't exactly "love" Germany or EU in it's current form.

nou wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

nou wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Problem for most of those parties is that they also contain significant far right/populist sentiments that can only carry them so far and are inherently divisive. They are reactionary/protests politics. They have been doing (marginally) well since the 2000's. And the EU can do very little against these parties mainly because their main focus is on domestic politics. Defeating Le Pen, Wilders and the AfD will never be through the efforts of the EU as the EU is just a side project to them. Their main focus is fighting for the nationalistic socio-cultural issues.

Let me reiterate, as you missed the point I was making and answered in a completely unrelated direction. Don't focus at parties, don't focus on "big names", focus on voters instead. Those are real people with their personalities, fears, worries, needs and views. Word "populists" is pretty much as devalued as "nazi" and "democracy" nowadays, with "populists" meaning pretty much the same as "other side of the political fence, which doesn't uphold 'our' or 'mainstream' view". Calling those voters "susceptible to populism" is not going to change that Brexit happened because of such neglected voters, Trump happened because such neglected voters, Orban happened because of such neglected voters and Le Pen nearly happened, Hofer nearly happened. In Poland, last presidential elections have turned from "pretty boring, 99% sure reelection with >60% voters backing reelection" to complete turnout of both presidential and parliamentary power by rise of fresh 10% "third party" during electorial period, exactly because pro EU Tusk's, which is now so called president of EU, actively neglected and marginalised nearly 40% of voters. And major west countries are now going down exactly the same road. Uncontent voters don't simply "go away" when you close your eyes and call them populists. What is "enlightened" and what is "populist" doesn't really matter in true democracies unless those "enlightened" view trully makes people's lives better in a way that is felt by them and can be "sold" during campaigns. Sadly, this is how world works. And in the last 5 years EU hasn't address anything, that pushes those voters into "populists fandom".

One more thing - pretty much noone in this thread has any real knowledge on how eastern and central EU members change the EU landscape after Brexit. You do realise, that after Brexit it is Weimar Triangle relations that define what will happen next?

I didn't miss the point, I was explaining that the parties these people vote for are populist/right wing parties that aren't really focused on the EU. As I said earlier, people voting for these parties are mainly doing so out of protest and not necessarily genuine belief as many of these parties have very incoherent platforms. As such people not happy with the EU have no one to vote for, as even Le Pen, Wilders and the AfD grudgingly put up with the EU or are whishy washy when it comes to a Nexit, Frexit or Dexit because they see its not popular enough. They keep backtracking and reforming their stances on the EU on a continuous basis because they are populist (its expected Le Pen is abandoning leaving the EU as a campaign platform after her loss).

I'm not accusing voters of falling pray to populism, on the contrary, populism is used to draw in everyone as a protest vote. Most of them are sensible enough to recognize that the AfD, Wilders or Le Pen have no real platform that would work in an economical or even legal sense. But things such as Trump voters just prove that people do it in protest, sticking up the middle finger to the 'establishment', but the lack of recognition that those policies are unworkable. Yet people like Le Pen and Wilders are the establishment, they are relatively wealthy people with long long careers in politics.

The problem is that our 'mainstream' parties don't give people a correct outlet. But my point was that neither do the populist/far right parties. They scream what sounds nice because it will attract everyone sick of the 'mainstream' in a kind of "that will show them". But in the end they won't offer the solution to those people either. On the EU these parties aren't better than others, the Front National already admitted there will be no Frexit and neither the AfD or Wilders wouldn't get the popular support. So yes, focus on the voters, but then what? In Western Europe these voters don't have real options and these populist parties willingly obfuscate their true viewpoints to get votes.

I'm not calling the voters populists, that would be strange as a populist is essentially just a type of politician, not really a run of the mill voter. Also being a 'populist' and 'enlightened' isn't necessarily a dichotomy, it just depends on what kind of brand of populism you're espousing. But the brand of populism in Europe is focused on fear and 'culture wars', which isn't very enlightened imo. Yet you missed my key point, namely that the EU can do very little on this front, as its mainly focused on domestic politics and not EU politics.

I have probably addressed some of our missunderstandings in my post to Killkrazy while you were writing yours... Answering directly - "But things such as Trump voters just prove that people do it in protest, sticking up the middle finger to the 'establishment', but the lack of recognition that those policies are unworkable." isn't true. Trump won, because US establishment neglected huge part of population, focusing only on "big cities problems" and mainstream narration blaming a lot of social issues on mythical "opressive white man", while in reality, most white men in the US were in a grip of the same structural problems other social groups are having. And Trump election is saying "enough is enough" by true population majority that have been blamed for everything. That is some serious fault of Obama's presidency to allow such blaming to grow.

This is the last I'm going to write on this as its getting dangerously off topic. It is true. Saying you recognize their problems is one thing, acting is another. Trump so far has done nothing to help his base with the tax reform and his efforts to repeal the ACA are actively harmful to his base. You nailed my previous point about the nationalistic/culture war though as that is fully what you focused on, instead of the lack of solutions for his base this past year.

Its a protest vote for someone with no workable policies.

nou wrote:
And such situations are repeating in the EU, just on different grounds. All your posts are very west-centric. But what is really going on within EU is brewing pretty much in central and eastern Europe. We had a long lasting war in Ukraine, just "right next door", and pretty much no western mainstream media used a word "war" for it. For eastern block countries Russian agression is not an imaginary possibility, but real fear, much stronger than migration problems. Did you knew, that Poland gave more than 1mln of Ukrainians work visas but is now being threaten by Schultz about not taking in Afrikan work migration in just because west prefers to call Marocans, Algerians and other migrants "war refugees"? Or that Nord Stream 2 and "gas wars/unified european energetic policy" are center of political focus for central european countries and voters in those countries? Our current governing party is being called populist and even fascist by pretty much all left-wing media in EU, despite it being pretty much as centric as previous governing party, it is just not pro-Germany (but is pro-EU, despite all being said about them). West-East tensions in EU have never been so strong as they are after Brexit. If last elections in Poland had different results, UE relocation treaty would pass, because our last government did everything Mekel wanted them to do (this is why Tusk is now president of EU) and Merkel would have a lot easier time creating her goverment right now.

It is not "local goverment duty" to manage clusterfeths and unrests that are made on highest levels of EU or Germany governments and influence everyone in Europe. We are too strongly interconnected to treat Farage, Le Pen, Orban or Kaczyński merely as "local aberrations". But a lot of "big names" on european scene still thinks, that they can "rule", not "govern"...

Its "Western-centric" because this is a topic about Germany, mainly considered a Western European country in politics and outlook. So comparing it to Western European countries provides the closest comparison.

Bringing up Ukraine is of little value, because in 5 seconds of googling I can find US, UK, German and other Western European media referring to the war in Ukraine. For Western Europe, Russian aggression is not an imaginary possibility either. Yet the fact that we threat it with more distance doesn't mean its not threatening in the West. There is a reason more Western NATO troops have gone to the Baltics. The fact that those are few in number is more of an indictment towards defense spending than any lack of perceived threat.

Also why are you using air quotes for war refugees? A good deal of Eastern European countries is refusing to take in actual refugees which is shameful. What do they think is going on in Syria exactly? Yeah the EU is handling their dispersal clumsily, but at the end of the road the EU isn't some place where you can pick out the nice things and leave the others to deal with any negative parts. I'm aware of Nord Stream 2 as EU energy policy is incredibly fascinating combined with oil and natural gas reserves of immediate non-EU neighbours and their (in)ability to meet rising demand.

From what media report on Poland here the words used are 'right wing' and 'authoritarian tendencies'. It depends on where you look for news. I have heard both sides from Poles outside of Poland, but situations such as Hungary or Poland put the EU on edge for good reason. With luck Poland can be discussed and negotiated with of course, because the government itself while having certain tendencies isn't that special a case/outlier. Orbán is another can of worms though.

You ignore the part that people like Farage, Le Pen and Orban blame the EU for local problems while only wanting the benefits. A lot of issues facing disgruntled voters do and have to be fixed on a national level because the EU has no control over it.

I reckon she’s had her time, but there’s no one ready to replace her, so she will go on.

nou wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

nou wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
^^ The above is correct except that it isn't the EU's role to address the concerns of "populist neglected voters" it is the role of the individual countries' governments to do so.

To get back to the main topic.. Merkel of course will go away eventually, because (to quote Voltaire, "All things fall") and also because at some point she probably will want to retire and live on her farm or whatever.

However I do not think that time is yet. For one thing, there are no very good contenders at the moment.

Not when huge amount of new laws in "new" or "poorer" EU countries during last decade have been introduced because EU demands standarisation and unification or straigt up "colony style" governing, even if it's against particular country interests. We had a few of large cases of such behavior in EU in the last decade, Greece's Syriza failure case being the biggest one.

And this is all "on topic", because, as I tried to point out, German inner politics isn't really inner to Germany. It is based on Germany role within EU and Merkel's ability to enforce German POV within EU. And this power is diminishing steadily for at least couple of years now. This is the mayor reason why coalition talks are prolonging. Looking just at German politics cannot give satisfactory answers to why there is no govermnent formed already. With just migration problem alone, German central government cannot satisfy some of Land-states that are opposing Merkel politics, because EU relocation politic was an utter failure. You simply cannot separate EU politics from any single EU country inner politics anymore.

"Having no good contenders" isn't realy any arguement as even recent history has shown, that such contenders repeatedly emerge in last moments and destabilise even such well established countries as Britain or US. At this moment only Germany Lands Federation structure is what is holding this stale from having greater destabilising influence on Germany situation. But inability to form a goverment lands on Merkels account, not opposition or coalition. Historically speaking, Germans always wanted and backed strong leaders. Last couple of years shows, that Merkel is no longer a strong leader. As soon as a "good enough" contender emerges, she's out. Schultzes position pretty much hinges right now on his "pet project" of 7th article vote against Poland (again, EU politics meaning a lot to inner German politics). If this vote fails he shows pretty much how weak he, his wing in EU and Germany are right now...

Well standardisation and unification make sense seeing as how its supposed to be a single market. Significant flaws in implementation aside the EU could only function as a political entity if you take out that chunk of importance to the single market. Greece is a very divisive case however, seeing as that both the EU and Greece share a portion of the blame.

I'm curious, why do you think German power in the EU is declining? Also the reason coalition talks are prolonging is not the EU, the Jamaica coalition failed because of other policy differences. Now between the SPD and CDU/CSU it will be a significant bone of contention, yet they already governed together the past four years. The EU is important in talks, but not the critical issue at the moment. Also yes the EU relocation policy failed, but in part because some countries absolutely refused to participate in helping refugees. In the end Merkel thought she did what was best, and really there weren't many options to stop the refugees from coming to Europe, forcing them out would be abominable.

Actually recent history shows that those contenders really aren't good contenders because they are in it for themselves. Nothing done so far has helped alleviate the problems facing the 'regular guy' (hell the only US 'succes' was the tax reform). They aren't good contenders exactly because they are populists, they lie and change positions so often that they have no coherent policies to actually help and show no interest to do so once they have succeeded.

Yes, if Merkel can't form a government it is on her. Yet there isn't really anyone in the wings to replace her yet, so if it came to another election she would likely be running and win again, getting stuck in the same mess. Another Merkel government is realistically and electorally seemingly the only way forward. She would be out after the next term in that situation. Also historically wanted and backed strong leaders? There are only a few German chancellors after 1945 that I would term as 'strong', its hardly "historical" if we exclude Bismarck and Hitler (and then "backed" is a seriously lacking term for how they acquired power).

Schultz already emerged as a contender for a while in the run up to the elections before going down, it won't hinge on Article 7, as its doomed to fail on account of Hungary anyway. So when the Article 7 vote fails it won't be seen as weakness, everyone knew it would anyone. The Article 7 vote was called as a signal to Poland, a fully symbolic move.

Why Germany power is declining? Have you heard about Chinese bailing out Deutche Bank and how German export subsidising works? I have already answered why Poland didn't took any "refugees" in (but is significantly helping "on site", which have been praised even by Syrian based institutions). Article 7 failure is yet another show of lack of real EU power to actually come to consensus. It started with Orban a long time ago, even then, against a much smaller country EU showed that it is structurally inefficient in actual governing. Numbers from relocation program, even within participating countries showed by Frontex and Eurostat are pretty much sign admition, that this problem has never been adressed in any rational or functional form. You might want to read into this artice from Le Figaro http://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/monde/2017/12/21/31002-20171221ARTFIG00266-l-injustice-faite-a-la-pologne-un-deni-de-democratie.php to see why there is factual "Europe of two speeds" or more precisely "two standards" and why Eastern and Central european countries won't accept German and French "hegemony" for much longer. Up untill two years ago, Germany had pretty much a 30mln worth of liegeman in form of Polish government, but now it has 30mln of competition. What you wrote about standarisation of EU laws shows how little you actually know about "minutiae" of eastern accession to EU structures. One example - French and Germany shipyards were government backed at the very same time Polish shipyards were closed because "illegal state backing". If you won't dig deeper into last 25 years of history of Eastern Europe you're pretty much doomed to fail understanding why Central and Eastern European countries don't exactly "love" Germany or EU in it's current form.

That has been going on a long time in regards to Germany however, its nothing new.

Article 7 is not a failure of EU power to come to a consensus. It shows the power a single member state wields in the form of an Orban veto. Either the EU does "colony style" governing as you said and enforce its will on Hungary or its "structurally inefficient" to do so, it can't be both. There is a limit to EU supranational power and that is not on the EU, the EU simply was never given that power in the first place. The refugee problem again is national governments blocking and trying to walk away from any shared responsibility.

That article is from Le Figaro, but its an opinion piece from someone with a clear agenda based on where he works. Its not meant to be an objective article. There is even a Europe of three speeds really, North-West, South and East. Yeah, the EU went too far too fast and now its trying to pick up the pieces. Also the 'minutiae'? I made a general statement that standardization is required for a single market while saying there are significant implementation flaws. How is that wrong exactly? What you mention seems like an obvious implementation flaw just like 'secret' differing product standards or dumping inside the EU. Just because I don't go into detail doesn't mean I don't know, what a rude assumption. The EU North-South divide is already significant let alone the West-East, there is barely any love out there for how Germany runs the EU. France puts up with it because its size means it can avoid 'Germany's' rules.

There are a lot of good and well informed posts here, so thanks for that.

I don't that much about modern German politics, so it's always hand to get a new perspective.

Another round of talks begins for forming a new government:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42594246

So what happens if the talks collapse? Merkel resigns? Fresh elections? Minority government or limbo for another few months?

I think the way we think about political careers is fundamentally strange. If someone enters public life because they have list of things they want to make happen, and after x years some of those goals aren't yet obtained and still might be, why would they leave? Its taken for granted that most of us will work in more or less the same profession for decades, but people in public life are seen differently for some reason. Now, politics is brutal and people can have careers ended in a single bad election, that's just the nature of the game. But this idea that a career should end just because its gone on a long time... what a strange notion that is.

Not having a go a Do I Not Like That for posing that question, because its a genuine question people are asking, I'm just saying its actually a pretty weird idea, if you think about it.

 sebster wrote:
I think the way we think about political careers is fundamentally strange. If someone enters public life because they have list of things they want to make happen, and after x years some of those goals aren't yet obtained and still might be, why would they leave? Its taken for granted that most of us will work in more or less the same profession for decades, but people in public life are seen differently for some reason. Now, politics is brutal and people can have careers ended in a single bad election, that's just the nature of the game. But this idea that a career should end just because its gone on a long time... what a strange notion that is.

Not having a go a Do I Not Like That for posing that question, because its a genuine question people are asking, I'm just saying its actually a pretty weird idea, if you think about it.

It's a drum I bang often on the UK politics thread,

but the problem with Western leaders, not just Merkel, is that they have no vision beyond power for its own sake. They mostly come across as bank managers and PR men/women fretting over missing paperclips.

If you know your post-WW2 UK history, then you'll know that the Labour party launched a moral crusade to eradicate poverty, squalor, unemployment, bad housing etc etc

and they gave us the biggest house-building programme in British history, and our NHS, and transformed Britain forever more. No UK politician since then has come even close to that.

Returning to Germany, every time I read a thread about Germany in a newspaper, somebody is always banging on about the delays to the new Berlin airport or something, and I've been hearing that for 5 years.

Why is Germany, a prosperous 1st world nation, still struggling to build an airport? It's symptomatic of the malaise affecting the West...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
but the problem with Western leaders, not just Merkel, is that they have no vision beyond power for its own sake. They mostly come across as bank managers and PR men/women fretting over missing paperclips.

If you know your post-WW2 UK history, then you'll know that the Labour party launched a moral crusade to eradicate poverty, squalor, unemployment, bad housing etc etc

and they gave us the biggest house-building programme in British history, and our NHS, and transformed Britain forever more. No UK politician since then has come even close to that.

Returning to Germany, every time I read a thread about Germany in a newspaper, somebody is always banging on about the delays to the new Berlin airport or something, and I've been hearing that for 5 years.

Why is Germany, a prosperous 1st world nation, still struggling to build an airport? It's symptomatic of the malaise affecting the West...

I wouldn't say its the problem with Western leaders. If you look at most PM/Presidents it is clear they have a vision for what is best for the country. Merkel and Macron both demonstrate that to some point, Merkel especially is flexible to the desires of Germany such as personally being unclear on gay marriage in a party against it, but still allowing a vote. You could call it cynical, but it does demonstrate a level of awareness not always present.

Problem with your UK comparison is that most of those benefits of the past still exist today, so politicians are mostly left tinkering to try and better the system as opposed to reinventing the wheel. Sadly that tinkering is heavily dependent on government budget and party leanings. Of course some political issues are UK specific or are trying to implement sweeping reforms people perceive as negative instead of positive.

On the Berlin Brandenburg note, it happens. Its not symptomatic I would say, as BB has become iconic do to the unique nature of its mess. Most of it comes down to the contractors that were hired. Afterwards it became clear they didn't have the expertise, several went bankrupt and had to be replaced, there was corruption going on etc. All of that adds up to significant delays, especially if you have to go back and rework significant parts. And it doesn't just happen in the West, most of the world has seen expensive construction delays, even countries such as China that are pumping out projects like this. It happens to all from time to time, nothing worth reading into.

The UK has got a problem with London Airport's proposed third runway. Should it be at Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted?

Also the HST2 route and expense, and the complaints over the cost of CrossRail, and so on.

These kind of big infrastructure projects are difficult to complete partly because western democracies are democratic and the "leader" isn't allowed to settle such issues by ukase.

I think Germany is going to regret opening the floodgates to refugees in the future and history might look back at her in a negative light. I don't really follow her, so I am not sure on all the 'good' she might have done though.

She seems to have been around for a long time. I think its better to get some new blood in after awhile.

KTG17 wrote:
I think Germany is going to regret opening the floodgates to refugees in the future and history might look back at her in a negative light.

There was no opening of floodgates, it's just the west has meddled enough in the middle east to cause some of the problems that led to a relatively huge amount of people in crisis who became refugees. Refugees don't move away from home for the fun of it. Some of the convoluted reasons people give for "fake refugees" abusing the system are similar to the stuff one hears about rape victims who accuse their attackers. Somehow those devil's advocates forget the harsh conditions and more or less complete lack of upside that has for some fictional version of "economic refugee" (similar to attention seeking fake rape accusers, the devil's advocates forget to imagine how rape victims/accusers get actually treated and instead imagine their own fictional and glamorous version).

But somehow the chance/possibility of ending up in Germany and being accepted (if they survive until they are here) is seen as some sort of opportunistic thing to do for "refugees" instead of seeing it as something only really desperate people would even be willing to go through. There may be a few who are really trying to do this (for whatever reason: economic, terrorism,…) but each other those objectives can usually be achieved easier, faster, and cheaper by just planning better and not trying a "fake refugee" gamble.

My question would be: Why would people look negatively at her for showing compassion to people who were in need of help and had nowhere else to go? I would get, maybe, naive but negative?

because germans have a tendency to be not feeling any compassion a bout their own...but somehow now it is possible that some here can show the compassion to strangers...which is not only raising eyebrows...
as for the main question of this thread...yes i hope so...she is unable to steer in her own party or allies and the thing that this whole wretched get together thing to form a government is taking ages...i think it is long overdue to get new and better candidates for the government...unfortunately the people avoid new chances and stick to worn out ones instead...german angst all over...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
but the problem with Western leaders, not just Merkel, is that they have no vision beyond power for its own sake. They mostly come across as bank managers and PR men/women fretting over missing paperclips.

You have a big assumption there that there is vast sweeping reform needed. But despite the angst from lots of people, life for people in Western countries is actually as good as life has been anywhere, at any time. You may say its not that great and there's lots of problems, and you wouldn't be wrong, but it's still the best that human beings have ever managed. So humble managers, just making sure all the paper clips are accounted for aren't exciting, but they're also what you need when future improvements are going to be hard won, and incremental.

The alternative is, well, Trump, and we know how that's turning out.

If you know your post-WW2 UK history, then you'll know that the Labour party launched a moral crusade to eradicate poverty, squalor, unemployment, bad housing etc etc

I know a bit. I know Atlee won in 1945 with an enormous majority, which he lost almost all of next election in 1950, and then lost government after a snap election in 1951. Regardless of what you might think of Atlee's programmes now, what mattered in democracy and what mattered to Atlee is how people at the time viewed his programs. And their opinions meant Atlee burned through a massive majority in record time and lost power quite quickly, after which Labor was left in the wilderness for the next 13 years. That doesn't mean I think his policies are wrong, I think government owned & rented housing is a far better answer to low income support than all the other nonsense we've tried since then. But if you want an explanation for why very few politicians attempt a wide range of genuine nation changing policies, it's generally because people don't want that much change.

Why is Germany, a prosperous 1st world nation, still struggling to build an airport? It's symptomatic of the malaise affecting the West...

You should be careful about cherry picking anecdotes to build a globe spanning narrative.

Not sure about Merkel....but May is on an increasingly sticky wicket.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not sure about Merkel....but May is on an increasingly sticky wicket.

I thought May May was on a sticky wicket from the start?

In one sense that is correct, as Brexit was always going to be difficult to deliver (starting with a decision of what it really means, which still isn't clear!)

However, May at least had a good majority in the Commons and could probably have forced through whatever Brexit deal she eventually ended up with, unless it was clearly utterly catastrophic.

From that viewpoint, her decision to call an election was a bad one and has made her wicket a lot stickier, and time is running out.

Then there's being unable to sack or move on members of her cabinet.

Basically, she's dependant on the DUP, who are dependant on the bribe. She has no authority, not even within her own party. And with the Tories, you need someone who's strong as party leader because their so inherently fractured.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
I thought May May was on a sticky wicket from the start?

Theresa May was fine until she came out with her idiotic manifesto. Her opponents are honest-to-God communists, and she almost handed them the election by giving literally everyone a reason to hate her.

No. Her opponents are socialists.

Quite the difference there, ta.

 Viktor von Domm wrote:
because germans have a tendency to be not feeling any compassion a bout their own...but somehow now it is possible that some here can show the compassion to strangers...which is not only raising eyebrows...
as for the main question of this thread...yes i hope so...she is unable to steer in her own party or allies and the thing that this whole wretched get together thing to form a government is taking ages...i think it is long overdue to get new and better candidates for the government...unfortunately the people avoid new chances and stick to worn out ones instead...german angst all over...

Well its been 3 months far as I know and she cannot formna government properly?

Surely there's is a cut off point where she will have to put up and form or form a minority, or call a new election. And even then if wins again will the circus repeat self and be locked for months in the limbo of no government.

Germany does need a government. She does have to put one together together if she wants to lead Germany.

She's not going to form a minority. Merkel's style of ruling requires her to not actually need to discuss anything in parliament, just tell her people what they're supposed to vote for. She doesn't want to persuade anyone. I think this has to do with her upbringing in the GDR where she was already a functionary, parliament is supposed to nod and be quiet, basically a show.

One of the main problems currently is that the CDU/CSU has been hollowed out to a political entity with no actual own programme. It used to be a conservative party (which is probably why so many people still vote for them, you know, Grandpa did it and so do we) and is now a purposeless mess willing to sell out to anyone to stay in power (I think she would have preferred the Greens, but they were too weak, and the FDP didn't play ball).

In the next period under the great coalition I think they're finally going to kill the SPD off, Merkel has always had the profound skill to appropriate all the little successes of her decisions to herself and the CDU while blaming all problems on her partners. This way she actually got the FDP voted out of the Bundestag once and if this keeps up, it will happen to the SPD, too, I think.

Yes, her time should end.
We just made the mistake to offer a "job" (chancellor) without a limit and so she will follow the path of Helmut Kohl...

The coalition of CDU and SPD may happen, because power, but I agree with XuQishi this will not end well for the SPD.
Wouldn't call this a Great Coalition. Seems it deserves another Name. Nothing great to see, neither the size of the partners nor the "visions". Maybe great words are used.

When the middle of Europe, is led like she does, my guess is this isn't in the best interest of everybody on our little continent and whoever put his money on Merkel is going to rue the Day.

 1hadhq wrote:
Great Coalition.

Isn't it technically the big (not great) coalition because it consists of the the two biggest parties (instead of a big one and one or two smaller ones who can govern without including the other one of the big ones).

Either way the two largest parties seem to have come to some accord - if the news over here is at least some way accurate. Even opposed factions can set aside differences to ensure the far right-wing nuts stay out

 Wulfmar wrote:
Either way the two largest parties seem to have come to some accord - if the news over here is at least some way accurate. Even opposed factions can set aside differences to ensure the far right-wing nuts stay out

Yeah, that is very true. here in the Netherlands we had a stable coalition of right-wing conservative liberals with left-wing progressive socialists. Parties with completely opposed viewpoints, yet I believe it was the first Dutch government to complete a full term in quite some time. This coalition was formed after a previous coalition of the liberals and the christian-democrats with the right-wing nuts of Geert Wilders turned out to be not such a good idea (I believe that may have been one of the shortest Dutch government in history).

 Wulfmar wrote:
Either way the two largest parties seem to have come to some accord - if the news over here is at least some way accurate. Even opposed factions can set aside differences to ensure the far right-wing nuts stay out

Yeah, I think the "traditional" parties would see it as an unacceptable blow to accept the AfD into any form of ruling coalition, no matter what - so they'll try to hammer together some kind of coalition. That'll be a bit of a personal blow to quite a few politicians who confidently refused another big coalition and said they wouldn't shy from another round of elections, but I think the point where those are an option are long past now.

There's a lot of internal struggle between federal and state level poltics, I think - one state faction of the SPD just voted comparably strongly against another big coalition, which is just a gesture with no impact behind it, but it shows how divided the parties are on this question.

It's a bit of a farce that they still call the current talks "Sondierungen" or "probes/probings" after so many months.

Edit - Just listened a bit to one of our more prominent Sunday talkshows. Somebody made a good point there - if the SPD agrees to another big coalition, after steadily losing voters over the last years, there's a good chance nobody will see a reason to vote for them again in four years, effectively marginalizing one of the oldest, largest parties in German politics. Which is why so many are getting cold feet, AGAIN, about this big coalition.

Slightly OT here, but as a student of German history, I'm constantly amazed that the SPD are still around, given how feeble they were in the 1920s and 1930s, and their ineffectiveness in WW1 and the Bismarck era.

They had a proper "worker's party" image for a long time around the 80s and 90s, but recently they seem to have lost a bit of their focus on how they want to define themselves as a party. If people can't really see important differences between one party and another...

 Witzkatz wrote:
They had a proper "worker's party" image for a long time around the 80s and 90s, but recently they seem to have lost a bit of their focus on how they want to define themselves as a party. If people can't really see important differences between one party and another...

To be fair, that's afflicting most parties in the Western World/Western Democracies.

Here in the UK, we have a Conservative party that is not Conservative, and a Labour party that despises working class people.

So Germany is not unique in this regard.

I am surprised that it has taken 3 months for a government to be formed.

Your nation has a reputation for efficiency in my country.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
They had a proper "worker's party" image for a long time around the 80s and 90s, but recently they seem to have lost a bit of their focus on how they want to define themselves as a party. If people can't really see important differences between one party and another...

To be fair, that's afflicting most parties in the Western World/Western Democracies.

Here in the UK, we have a Conservative party that is not Conservative, and a Labour party that despises working class people.

So Germany is not unique in this regard.

I am surprised that it has taken 3 months for a government to be formed.

Your nation has a reputation for efficiency in my country.

Oh, the government still has not been formed. Probing talks are - again - over, officially, so now they're supposed to start the actual government-forming-talks, but there's confusion and contrary voices all over the place. Might take still a bit longer until they are done.

Feels a bit strange that, officially, there is no clear ruling coalition for the last months but you don't really feel any of that, life just goes on, politicians still do their thing...

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:given how feeble they were in the 1920s and 1930s

Really

On July 20, 1932, the SPD-led Prussian government in Berlin, headed by Otto Braun, was ousted by Franz von Papen, the new Chancellor, by means of a Presidential decree. Following the appointment of Adolf Hitler as chancellor on January 30, 1933 by president Hindenburg, the SPD received 18.25% of the votes during the last (at least partially) free elections on March 5, gaining 120 seats. However, the SPD was unable to prevent the ratification of the Enabling Act, which granted extraconstitutional powers to the government. The SPD was the only party to vote against the act (the KPD being already outlawed and its deputies were under arrest, dead, or in exile). Several of its deputies had been detained by the police under the provisions of the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended civil liberties. Others suspected that the SPD would be next, and fled into exile.[36] However, even if they had all been present, the Act would have still passed, as the 441 votes in favour would have still been more than the required two-thirds majority.

After the passing of the Enabling Act, dozens of SPD deputies were arrested, and several more fled into exile. Those that remained tried their best to appease the Nazis. They voted in favour of Hitler's foreign policy statement of 19 May, in which he declared his willingness to renounce all offensive weapons if other countries followed suit. They also publicly distanced themselves from their brethren abroad who condemned Hitler's tactics. It was to no avail. Over the course of the spring, the police confiscated the SPD's newspapers and property. The party was finally banned on June 19, 1933.

Being the only party in the Reichstag to have voted against the Enabling Act (with the Communist Party of Germany prevented from voting), the SPD was banned in the summer of 1933 by the new Nazi government. Many of its members were jailed or sent to Nazi concentration camps. An exile organization, known as Sopade, was established, initially in Prague. Others left the areas where they had been politically active and moved to other towns where they were not known.

Between 1936 and 1939 some SPD members fought in Spain for the Republic against Franco and the German Condor Legion.

After the annexation of Czechoslovakia in 1938 the exile party resettled in Paris and, after the defeat of France in 1940, in London. Only a few days after the outbreak of World War II in September 1939 the exiled SPD in Paris declared its support for the Allies and for the military removal from power of the Nazi government.

What would you expect from a fascist leadership, to just let them be the opposition? For its post WW2 rebirth the linked wikipedia article also has something about that.

 Witzkatz wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
They had a proper "worker's party" image for a long time around the 80s and 90s, but recently they seem to have lost a bit of their focus on how they want to define themselves as a party. If people can't really see important differences between one party and another...

To be fair, that's afflicting most parties in the Western World/Western Democracies.

Here in the UK, we have a Conservative party that is not Conservative, and a Labour party that despises working class people.

So Germany is not unique in this regard.

I am surprised that it has taken 3 months for a government to be formed.

Your nation has a reputation for efficiency in my country.

Oh, the government still has not been formed. Probing talks are - again - over, officially, so now they're supposed to start the actual government-forming-talks, but there's confusion and contrary voices all over the place. Might take still a bit longer until they are done.

Feels a bit strange that, officially, there is no clear ruling coalition for the last months but you don't really feel any of that, life just goes on, politicians still do their thing...

3 months is kinda getting silly though. And no concrete answer. Someone should tell Merkel, Shultz and whoever else to agree or not and have a new election.

A week or two maybe. 3 months is abit of a joke. Give em a week. If no deal. New election or they can stand down Might get em taking it more seriously..

In contrast, it's kinda showing how diffrent systems are. Our election was on Thursday, results friday. Coalition was Monday one Tuesday.

People where unsure on Sunday about things, and taking notes, yet alone weeks.

We had a coalition and deal agreed in about a week with DUP, the con lib pact took a weekend.

Maybe we ain't so bad at this political stuff as some make out.

In Belgium it took 541 days before parties were able to negotiate a coalition. The current Dutch government took 208 days.
3 months isn't that long.
Long negotiation talks are pretty much a given in the current European political climate with how European democracies work. Calling new elections over it would be silly and not solve anything. They will come to a deal eventually. No need to rush it.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
In Belgium it took 541 days before parties were able to negotiate a coalition. The current Dutch government took 208 days.
3 months isn't that long.
Long negotiation talks are pretty much a given in the current European political climate with how European democracies work. Calling new elections over it would be silly and not solve anything. They will come to a deal eventually. No need to rush it.

To add, lets not forget the previous German government was only formed at almost three months after the election. This time Christmas and New Year added an extra week of inactivity. Take into account that in 2013 they almost exclusively talked to the SPD. Now they had talks with the FDP and Die Grünen that collapsed before going to the SPD. So really, why are people perceiving three months as absurd?

Lets stop pretending three months is somehow bizarre for a system of proportional representation.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
No. Her opponents are socialists.

Quite the difference there, ta.

Well, to be fair, Corbyn's history alone is enough to make people think that Labour is chock full of communists. And he strikes me as someone that is more like "old Labour" than a Blarite "New Labour" type.

So on Sunday this week, the SPD wants to have a internal (hopefully final) vote about whether or not they will start coalition talks with the CDU. News agencies are saying that if it ends in a "No", Martin Schulz will probably not be able to hold onto his position as head of the party.

So I guess we can expect a week of Schulz - who tweeted a definitive "No to another big coalition!" a few weeks ago - trying to motivate everyone with how great another big coalition would be. Quite a few people were initially thinking he might be the next chancellor, but now I have this gut feeling we might be better off with him not being in that position...

...it's interesting to see how you don't hear a lot about Merkel in the news these days, even though the CDU still got the most votes. It's mostly about the other parties clamoring about this or that and how to proceed. Also kind of typical for her style of politics by now, waiting in the background to see how things develop and then capitalize on whatever happens. Sensible from her position, I guess - I see the benefits of a cautious, steady approach, but I get why some people think her time as a confident leader might be over very soon.


Edit: The smaller parties feel the AfD on their heels, I think. Sarah Wagenknecht, leader of our 'the Left' party, apparently called for a grand new left-wing movement for the people, politicians from different parties coming together, forging something new...of course, her own party kind of went into a panic moment, thinking she was implying a dissolution of the Left party into something else. Yesterday she was backtracking a lot again, saying she'd just like to strengthen the Left and make it into a larger party. (Isn't that what they all want to do? How does that fit with her earlier statement anyway? Oh well...)

They had a proper "worker's party" image for a long time around the 80s and 90s, but recently they seem to have lost a bit of their focus on how they want to define themselves as a party.

I think they lost the track. They're now going heavily after the votes of minorities and the unemployed and seem to ignore that these guys either vote socialist or not at all. Meanwhile the SPD keeps punching the middle class skilled worker in the face by doing nothing for them. But then I wouldn't really expect them to, most SPD (or green) functionaries nowadays haven't worked a day in the industry in their lives, most of them are civil servants of some kind.
Say what you will about ex-Chancellor Schröder - he came from nothing and worked hard to get to where he was.

XuQishi wrote:

They had a proper "worker's party" image for a long time around the 80s and 90s, but recently they seem to have lost a bit of their focus on how they want to define themselves as a party.

I think they lost the track. They're now going heavily after the votes of minorities and the unemployed and seem to ignore that these guys either vote socialist or not at all. Meanwhile the SPD keeps punching the middle class skilled worker in the face by doing nothing for them. But then I wouldn't really expect them to, most SPD (or green) functionaries nowadays haven't worked a day in the industry in their lives, most of them are civil servants of some kind.
Say what you will about ex-Chancellor Schröder - he came from nothing and worked hard to get to where he was.

I mostly agree. And while I'm not all too fond of Schröder using is old political connections to now earn royalties with GAZPROM and co., I also thought he was a pretty decent chancellor, all things considered. I'm not sure I would expect the same from Martin Schulz these days - though any other alternatives also don't spring to mind immediately.

I'm assuming these coalition talks take comparably long right now because everybody is already trying to figure out a game plan for the next election, and nobody is happy with what they're seeing.

I'm assuming these coalition talks take comparably long right now because everybody is already trying to figure out a game plan for the next election, and nobody is happy with what they're seeing.

and also i am thinking that after that whole time the big coalition will form and rule...but no one can say for how long...it is at it´s best an uneasy alliance...and we´ve seen crumbling coalitions leading to early new elections....this scenario is in my view the most likely one...

Mario wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:given how feeble they were in the 1920s and 1930s

Really

On July 20, 1932, the SPD-led Prussian government in Berlin, headed by Otto Braun, was ousted by Franz von Papen, the new Chancellor, by means of a Presidential decree. Following the appointment of Adolf Hitler as chancellor on January 30, 1933 by president Hindenburg, the SPD received 18.25% of the votes during the last (at least partially) free elections on March 5, gaining 120 seats. However, the SPD was unable to prevent the ratification of the Enabling Act, which granted extraconstitutional powers to the government. The SPD was the only party to vote against the act (the KPD being already outlawed and its deputies were under arrest, dead, or in exile). Several of its deputies had been detained by the police under the provisions of the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended civil liberties. Others suspected that the SPD would be next, and fled into exile.[36] However, even if they had all been present, the Act would have still passed, as the 441 votes in favour would have still been more than the required two-thirds majority.

After the passing of the Enabling Act, dozens of SPD deputies were arrested, and several more fled into exile. Those that remained tried their best to appease the Nazis. They voted in favour of Hitler's foreign policy statement of 19 May, in which he declared his willingness to renounce all offensive weapons if other countries followed suit. They also publicly distanced themselves from their brethren abroad who condemned Hitler's tactics. It was to no avail. Over the course of the spring, the police confiscated the SPD's newspapers and property. The party was finally banned on June 19, 1933.

Being the only party in the Reichstag to have voted against the Enabling Act (with the Communist Party of Germany prevented from voting), the SPD was banned in the summer of 1933 by the new Nazi government. Many of its members were jailed or sent to Nazi concentration camps. An exile organization, known as Sopade, was established, initially in Prague. Others left the areas where they had been politically active and moved to other towns where they were not known.

Between 1936 and 1939 some SPD members fought in Spain for the Republic against Franco and the German Condor Legion.

After the annexation of Czechoslovakia in 1938 the exile party resettled in Paris and, after the defeat of France in 1940, in London. Only a few days after the outbreak of World War II in September 1939 the exiled SPD in Paris declared its support for the Allies and for the military removal from power of the Nazi government.

What would you expect from a fascist leadership, to just let them be the opposition? For its post WW2 rebirth the linked wikipedia article also has something about that.

They turned a blind eye to Rosa Luxemburg being murdered, and they tried to appease Conservative elements that loathed and despised them, and were hell-bent on destroying them.

That is not a measure of success in any book.

 Viktor von Domm wrote:

I'm assuming these coalition talks take comparably long right now because everybody is already trying to figure out a game plan for the next election, and nobody is happy with what they're seeing.

and also i am thinking that after that whole time the big coalition will form and rule...but no one can say for how long...it is at it´s best an uneasy alliance...and we´ve seen crumbling coalitions leading to early new elections....this scenario is in my view the most likely one...

Thete is a clear advantage to majority government at times. It may have its faults but least you get one that's ready to take power normally inside a few days to a week to get thr cabinet roles set up and decided.

UK system has faults but that is a clear advantage.
Most of the time we get a majority however slim.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
They turned a blind eye to Rosa Luxemburg being murdered, and they tried to appease Conservative elements that loathed and despised them, and were hell-bent on destroying them.

That is not a measure of success in any book.

Blind eye in what sense? Luxemburg and the SPD had a very public break. And the events that led to her execution were approved by the SPD leader itself to stop a new revolutionary wave. So how would that in any way be termed as turning a blind eye?

Also appease the Conservative elements is a very subjective view. The SPD enjoyed quite some succes in the Weimar period. The conservative elements were more concerned about the KPD than the SPD.

Also none of that provides any measurement for succes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Viktor von Domm wrote:

I'm assuming these coalition talks take comparably long right now because everybody is already trying to figure out a game plan for the next election, and nobody is happy with what they're seeing.

and also i am thinking that after that whole time the big coalition will form and rule...but no one can say for how long...it is at it´s best an uneasy alliance...and we´ve seen crumbling coalitions leading to early new elections....this scenario is in my view the most likely one...

Thete is a clear advantage to majority government at times. It may have its faults but least you get one that's ready to take power normally inside a few days to a week to get thr cabinet roles set up and decided.

UK system has faults but that is a clear advantage.
Most of the time we get a majority however slim.

This doesn't really matter though, because as long as no new government is formed the old government just stays in place. So speed of setup really doesn't matter that much for the functioning of the country or power from not having a new one yet.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
They turned a blind eye to Rosa Luxemburg being murdered, and they tried to appease Conservative elements that loathed and despised them, and were hell-bent on destroying them.

That is not a measure of success in any book.

Blind eye in what sense? Luxemburg and the SPD had a very public break. And the events that led to her execution were approved by the SPD leader itself to stop a new revolutionary wave. So how would that in any way be termed as turning a blind eye?

Also appease the Conservative elements is a very subjective view. The SPD enjoyed quite some succes in the Weimar period. The conservative elements were more concerned about the KPD than the SPD.

Also none of that provides any measurement for succes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Viktor von Domm wrote:

I'm assuming these coalition talks take comparably long right now because everybody is already trying to figure out a game plan for the next election, and nobody is happy with what they're seeing.

and also i am thinking that after that whole time the big coalition will form and rule...but no one can say for how long...it is at it´s best an uneasy alliance...and we´ve seen crumbling coalitions leading to early new elections....this scenario is in my view the most likely one...

Thete is a clear advantage to majority government at times. It may have its faults but least you get one that's ready to take power normally inside a few days to a week to get thr cabinet roles set up and decided.

UK system has faults but that is a clear advantage.
Most of the time we get a majority however slim.

This doesn't really matter though, because as long as no new government is formed the old government just stays in place. So speed of setup really doesn't matter that much for the functioning of the country or power from not having a new one yet.

And depending on the political shift you could end up with a total dud place hold stuck on cruise, as the old was voted out and thius has no real "saction" to change anything as now technicaly no legitimate, they gopt voted out.
Thus now your stuck in cruise for months unable to make large changes or take actions bar mantinign status quo.

Only one who can erffect change are still trying to form, months later.

thats a fail.

Apparently, CDU/CSU and SPD are already at each other's throats again over the results of the last talks. There's accusations of trying to weasel sentences into the coalition papers, or removing lines secretly. I'm highly sceptical anything harmonic and efficient will come out of another big coalition if this is their starting point.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

This doesn't really matter though, because as long as no new government is formed the old government just stays in place. So speed of setup really doesn't matter that much for the functioning of the country or power from not having a new one yet.

And depending on the political shift you could end up with a total dud place hold stuck on cruise, as the old was voted out and thius has no real "saction" to change anything as now technicaly no legitimate, they gopt voted out.
Thus now your stuck in cruise for months unable to make large changes or take actions bar mantinign status quo.

Only one who can erffect change are still trying to form, months later.

thats a fail.

That's why you should plan ahead and not let every policy end the day of the elections. The sitting government can take care of business perfectly well and also take care of pressing matters if needed.

But this is normal practice and would be expected and prepared for in countries with these systems.

Also the UK has a similar problem then no? As the UK parliament gets dissolved when the election campaign starts, while in Germany it just stays in place until replaced by the new one. So really all the UK does is shift the 'holding' pattern to before the election.

In the UK system is the election period is strictly time limited, and the result is known the day after the election.

The Queen then invites the leader of the largest party to form a government.

The largest party usually has an absolute majority in the House of Commons, but, the last three general elections in the supposedly decisive UK system resulted in a coalition government, then a goverment with only 36% of the vote, and most recently a minority government clinging on to power by the help of a few Ulster Unionists who give their support thanks to a massive additional grant to their region.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In the UK system is the election period is strictly time limited, and the result is known the day after the election.

The Queen then invites the leader of the largest party to form a government.

The largest party usually has an absolute majority in the House of Commons, but, the last three general elections in the supposedly decisive UK system resulted in a coalition government, then a goverment with only 36% of the vote, and most recently a minority government clinging on to power by the help of a few Ulster Unionists who give their support thanks to a massive additional grant to their region.

Oh, the election results were known the day after, too, in Germany. It's just that the "usual" didn't happen and there was an obvious coalition like in earlier years - it was a lot of SPD/Greens or CDU/FDP back then. With votes being so split up between CDU/CSU, SPD, Greens, FDP, Lefts, AfD and smaller parties, there's no "obvious" go-to team-up. There might be some parallels between UK and Germany that way, the classical election results with one strong party seem to be gone for now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In the UK system is the election period is strictly time limited, and the result is known the day after the election.

The Queen then invites the leader of the largest party to form a government.

The largest party usually has an absolute majority in the House of Commons, but, the last three general elections in the supposedly decisive UK system resulted in a coalition government, then a goverment with only 36% of the vote, and most recently a minority government clinging on to power by the help of a few Ulster Unionists who give their support thanks to a massive additional grant to their region.

True, but parliament is dissolved while the election campaign takes place, so the government can't turn to parliament for pressing matters until all of them are replaced. Meanwhile in Germany the old government can always go to the new parliament in need. While systems such as Germany take longer to set up a new government but not parliament, the old and new ones replace each other almost instantly, but in the UK that is only true for the government.

So viewed like that the government 'gap' in Germany might be longer while the one in the UK is bigger for a shorter period.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

This doesn't really matter though, because as long as no new government is formed the old government just stays in place. So speed of setup really doesn't matter that much for the functioning of the country or power from not having a new one yet.

And depending on the political shift you could end up with a total dud place hold stuck on cruise, as the old was voted out and thius has no real "saction" to change anything as now technicaly no legitimate, they gopt voted out.
Thus now your stuck in cruise for months unable to make large changes or take actions bar mantinign status quo.

Only one who can erffect change are still trying to form, months later.

thats a fail.

That's why you should plan ahead and not let every policy end the day of the elections. The sitting government can take care of business perfectly well and also take care of pressing matters if needed.

But this is normal practice and would be expected and prepared for in countries with these systems.

Also the UK has a similar problem then no? As the UK parliament gets dissolved when the election campaign starts, while in Germany it just stays in place until replaced by the new one. So really all the UK does is shift the 'holding' pattern to before the election.

True. But we also tend to have a faster turn around once election done. They tend to be stabilised quicker once ready to go.

The holding patten is for 6 weeks yes, but we have both replaced and both ready to roll in 6 weeks.

Germany seems to have a parliment but... 3 months for a government to agree seems a very long time. As said. UK formed a coalition in under a week. Twice.

Not months.

Taking over a year gets plain stupid let's be honest though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Witzkatz wrote:
Apparently, CDU/CSU and SPD are already at each other's throats again over the results of the last talks. There's accusations of trying to weasel sentences into the coalition papers, or removing lines secretly. I'm highly sceptical anything harmonic and efficient will come out of another big coalition if this is their starting point.

At what point does Germany cut off and tell them to put up and shut up if cannot?

Just wondering what the limit is?

 jhe90 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

This doesn't really matter though, because as long as no new government is formed the old government just stays in place. So speed of setup really doesn't matter that much for the functioning of the country or power from not having a new one yet.

And depending on the political shift you could end up with a total dud place hold stuck on cruise, as the old was voted out and thius has no real "saction" to change anything as now technicaly no legitimate, they gopt voted out.
Thus now your stuck in cruise for months unable to make large changes or take actions bar mantinign status quo.

Only one who can erffect change are still trying to form, months later.

thats a fail.

That's why you should plan ahead and not let every policy end the day of the elections. The sitting government can take care of business perfectly well and also take care of pressing matters if needed.

But this is normal practice and would be expected and prepared for in countries with these systems.

Also the UK has a similar problem then no? As the UK parliament gets dissolved when the election campaign starts, while in Germany it just stays in place until replaced by the new one. So really all the UK does is shift the 'holding' pattern to before the election.

True. But we also tend to have a faster turn around once election done. They tend to be stabilised quicker once ready to go.

The holding patten is for 6 weeks yes, but we have both replaced and both ready to roll in 6 weeks.

Germany seems to have a parliment but... 3 months for a government to agree seems a very long time. As said. UK formed a coalition in under a week. Twice.

Not months.

Taking over a year gets plain stupid let's be honest though.

Sure, the UK is faster as a result of the FPTP system. It would honestly be odd if that wasn't the case if one or two parties run the show. But getting a very significant chunk also makes any potential negotiations easier in FPTP because it is easier to agree to certain demands and one is obviously the major partner.

Meanwhile the German system requires at least two to three parties. Negotiations between multiple and less unequal partners takes time. Certainly when they are politically not as close on the left-rightish policies. So negotiations just take longer. Three months isn't that long in a non-FPTP system, because the vote, interests and power are more divided.

Taking over a year is very silly, but it happens as just negotiating for months is preferable to new elections for most parties. Certainly because there is no guarentee that next election the result is going to be more clear.

While the UK gets things done faster, most people in systems of proportional representation wouldn't change their system for one that basically boils down to just two unappealing choices. Its a tradeoff between choice and speed.

Also as far as I'm aware there is no time limit to coalition talks.

There is no limit. They could basically waste the whole 4 years on it, meanwhile the old CDU/SPD coalition remains in place as acting government.

Certainly because there is no guarentee that next election the result is going to be more clear.

Chances are that it would be worse what with the SPD basically dying in the polls now.

There is no particular reason to think that forming a government quickly is better.

If the nation was in a state of crisis, such as war, then obviously it makes a difference, but that isn't the case here.

Looking at the long term results, it is pretty obvious that Germany is in many ways a more successful country than the UK. It's hard to say from that example that PR and dickering around to form governments is detrimental.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There is no particular reason to think that forming a government quickly is better.

You can't think of any particular reason why allowing the old government to remain in power after it has been voted out of office is a bad thing?

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There is no particular reason to think that forming a government quickly is better.

You can't think of any particular reason why allowing the old government to remain in power after it has been voted out of office is a bad thing?

The political landscape hasn't changed all that much on the grand scheme of things (actually the new coalition in the works looks very much like the one it will be replacing)

It's up to the new government to provide a stable parliamentary majority after all.

I would agree with that.

The outgoing government isn't going to suddenly transform itself into a dictatorship, or make a load of shoddy international treaties, or something, because the population simply would not accept it and nor would foreign powers.

In the meantime, the civil service and ministers carry on with business as normal.

We've had this situation in a number of countries a number of times, and things have panned out as I describe.

Apologies to the Mods if this violates any Forum rules with regard to necromancy or whatever, but I thought I'd boost this thread up, rather than start a new thread, as new developments have happened in Germany.

SPD have agreed new coalition with Merkel

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43276732

So a few questions for German dakka members or any other German politics expert:

1. Is the AfD the official opposition?

2. I don't know how German broadcasting works with regard to political parties, but here in Britain, the opposition get more air time and the right to reply to government initiatives. So again, does that mean the AfD will get more TV time, and hence, more exposure?

What do you think of the AFD?

 MrDwhitey wrote:
What do you think of the AFD?

The greatest thing to happen to Europe since the Mongols paid us a visit. It will be a great day for Germany if they are ever elected to government, because it will usher in a golden age for the German nation...

Ok, I'm being sarcastic, and perhaps some people think that my support for Brexit equates to supporting AfD. It does not.

You can be left-wing like me, and be anti-EU.

But none the less, the AfD is just a symptom of the malise affecting the Left all over Europe from Spain to italy, to the UK, to Germany...

It's abandonement of the working-classes, its obession with the poison of identity politics, and its inability to present solitions to problems, has lead to the re-emergence of the right.

AfD's success does not surprise me in the least.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Apologies to the Mods if this violates any Forum rules with regard to necromancy or whatever, but I thought I'd boost this thread up, rather than start a new thread, as new developments have happened in Germany.

Nah, you're good.

Thanks for the response DINLT, you may be surprised to know I agree with you on some things there.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Apologies to the Mods if this violates any Forum rules with regard to necromancy or whatever, but I thought I'd boost this thread up, rather than start a new thread, as new developments have happened in Germany.

SPD have agreed new coalition with Merkel

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43276732

So a few questions for German dakka members or any other German politics expert:

1. Is the AfD the official opposition?

2. I don't know how German broadcasting works with regard to political parties, but here in Britain, the opposition get more air time and the right to reply to government initiatives. So again, does that mean the AfD will get more TV time, and hence, more exposure?

1. "official" Opposition ?
Is there more than One flavor?

2. ARD+ZDF guarantee "the correct" view upon things
So we don't Need any competing POV.

3. The Big Crash is on its Way ....

 1hadhq wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Apologies to the Mods if this violates any Forum rules with regard to necromancy or whatever, but I thought I'd boost this thread up, rather than start a new thread, as new developments have happened in Germany.

SPD have agreed new coalition with Merkel

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43276732

So a few questions for German dakka members or any other German politics expert:

1. Is the AfD the official opposition?

2. I don't know how German broadcasting works with regard to political parties, but here in Britain, the opposition get more air time and the right to reply to government initiatives. So again, does that mean the AfD will get more TV time, and hence, more exposure?

1. "official" Opposition ?
Is there more than One flavor?

2. ARD+ZDF guarantee "the correct" view upon things
So we don't Need any competing POV.

3. The Big Crash is on its Way ....

If anything like UK system, Largest opposition is Official, gets a degree of funding and also forms a shadow cabinet to challenge party or parties in power.

all others are Opposition, one is considered the main though,

not sure on rest.

Slightly surprised by this...,

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/angela-merkel-claims-no-go-areas-exist-germany-090315792.html

She admiting, when she was one who was proclaiming no real problems? It was her big thing to open up Germanny?

Not a anti refugee position, but i mean something has, or had not happened, it cannot be both. its not Shrodinger.
this seems a total 180 from her position a few years ago.

The study, published in January, used data from Lower Saxony, a state where 90 percent of the crime rise was attributed to male migrants.

Wow. Is that a real number?

Hard to know, since "attributed" is a real word which means that the figures could be entirely made up.

It would be good to get the opinion of our German members who could read the research in the original language.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Hard to know, since "attributed" is a real word which means that the figures could be entirely made up.

It would be good to get the opinion of our German members who could read the research in the original language.

Without a link something like that thrown in is pretty useless. Like you said, it can entirely made up, or the 90% attributed could be on a rise of only a few percentages.

Without even seeing the research, even if the 90% statement is true, the thing that matters is how many on a 100.000. Of course crime goes up with more people, but is the increase excessive when considering the 'German' base number? Shame they don't link it.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Hard to know, since "attributed" is a real word which means that the figures could be entirely made up.

It would be good to get the opinion of our German members who could read the research in the original language.

Without a link something like that thrown in is pretty useless. Like you said, it can entirely made up, or the 90% attributed could be on a rise of only a few percentages.

Without even seeing the research, even if the 90% statement is true, the thing that matters is how many on a 100.000. Of course crime goes up with more people, but is the increase excessive when considering the 'German' base number? Shame they don't link it.

I just saw that and thought well, it was surprising to hear from the woman who did champion and issue the invitation to shelter those fleeing the war.

Not judging it, as likely get thread locked but more the nature that that is quite the 180

And, I used yahoo as I deemed to a more reliable source than daily mail or RT. Who would probbly have stats and everything but I doubt Dakka would entirely agree with my choice of media sources.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Hard to know, since "attributed" is a real word which means that the figures could be entirely made up.

It would be good to get the opinion of our German members who could read the research in the original language.

Without a link something like that thrown in is pretty useless. Like you said, it can entirely made up, or the 90% attributed could be on a rise of only a few percentages.

Without even seeing the research, even if the 90% statement is true, the thing that matters is how many on a 100.000. Of course crime goes up with more people, but is the increase excessive when considering the 'German' base number? Shame they don't link it.

I just saw that and thought well, it was surprising to hear from the woman who did champion and issue the invitation to shelter those fleeing the war.

Not judging it, as likely get thread locked but more the nature that that is quite the 180

And, I used yahoo as I deemed to a more reliable source than daily mail or RT. Who would probbly have stats and everything but I doubt Dakka would entirely agree with my choice of media sources.

It was only surprising to hear because you're seemingly reading more into what she said. She talked about preventing no go areas in relation to crime, not a word about immigrants or muslims as is frequently the context used for no go zones. So you can link what she said to the refugee influx, but that wasn't her context so to speak. It was not admitting they exist or speculating about reasoning beyond crime.

Oh the question wasn't about reliability. I can totally believe one research concluded the 90% thing, while on the other hand also saying it can still be small/insignificant when considering the 'German' base level.

 kronk wrote:

The study, published in January, used data from Lower Saxony, a state where 90 percent of the crime rise was attributed to male migrants.

Wow. Is that a real number?

I know in finland there are months where immigrants are less likely be involved in crime per 1000 than locals. Inclduding as a victim

For what its worth, trying to find the study I saw this on Reuters, key part:

Violent crime rose by about 10 percent in 2015 and 2016, a study showed. It attributed more than 90 percent of that to young male refugees.

It noted, however, that migrants settling from war-torn countries such as Syria were much less likely to commit violent crimes that those from other places who were unlikely to be given asylum.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-crime/violent-crime-rises-in-germany-and-is-attributed-to-refugees-idUSKBN1ES16J

So maybe we can drop the refugees=crime for now. As it seems mainly driven by asylum seekers versus Syrian/Iraqi refugees from the 2015-2016 wave.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


So maybe we can drop the refugees=crime for now.

We both know that's never going to happen.

1. Is the AfD the official opposition?

It's the leader of the opposition, but that doesn't mean much.

2. I don't know how German broadcasting works with regard to political parties, but here in Britain, the opposition get more air time and the right to reply to government initiatives. So again, does that mean the AfD will get more TV time, and hence, more exposure?

Probably not, because the opposition does not matter that much.


As to the 90% number. I haven't read the link, but I guess they got the number from the Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut Niedersachsen. If those guys claim that number, I would believe it; it might even be too low, given the association of that institute with Christian Pfeiffer, an ex-Minister of Justice and SPD-member.

You can be left-wing like me, and be anti-EU.
But none the less, the AfD is just a symptom of the malise affecting the Left all over Europe from Spain to italy, to the UK, to Germany...
It's abandonement of the working-classes, its obession with the poison of identity politics, and its inability to present solitions to problems, has lead to the re-emergence of the right.
AfD's success does not surprise me in the least.

I agree with this. Germany does not have a left-wing political option that is EU-critical, though. The AfD's success is not the illness, it's a symptom. Social Democracy is dying, mostly because they offer no solutions to problems that people actually care about because they don't ask the right questions and ignore the ones they hear because they don't like them, as they're ideologically "wrong". I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that many of the leaders in politics today haven't worked a single day outside of the ivory tower, particularly the salon lefties. They come from saturated homes - both parents are teachers, that's common -, study politology or something useless (Andrea Nahles, very high up in the SPD's chain of command, wrote her thesis on the function of catastrophe in serialised pulp love novels...) for 20 semesters and go right into party functions. The leadership of the worker's party is devoid of workers or even people from a family that had common workers in it at least one generation ago, that is not a recipe for success.

 jhe90 wrote:

 1hadhq wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Apologies to the Mods if this violates any Forum rules with regard to necromancy or whatever, but I thought I'd boost this thread up, rather than start a new thread, as new developments have happened in Germany.

SPD have agreed new coalition with Merkel

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43276732

So a few questions for German dakka members or any other German politics expert:

1. Is the AfD the official opposition?

2. I don't know how German broadcasting works with regard to political parties, but here in Britain, the opposition get more air time and the right to reply to government initiatives. So again, does that mean the AfD will get more TV time, and hence, more exposure?

1. "official" Opposition ?
Is there more than One flavor?

2. ARD+ZDF guarantee "the correct" view upon things
So we don't Need any competing POV.

3. The Big Crash is on its Way ....

If anything like UK system, Largest opposition is Official, gets a degree of funding and also forms a shadow cabinet to challenge party or parties in power.

all others are Opposition, one is considered the main though,

There's no such thing as official opposition or shadow ministers. Everyone not in the government is the opposition, and the needs of minority governments often end up with parties and MPs shifting between those two groups.

At least here, and I guess it's the same case in Germany, parties get proportional parliamentary time depending on their seats in official control debates, questions in state of the nation addresses and positions in official enquiries or expert groups, but that's about it. Below a certain threshold of seats all parties get lumped together into a Mixed Group to avoid having 10+ groups.

Funding is also proportional (on votes and seats, don't know the exact formula but both count).

Like people before me said, the AfD will be part of the opposition. I think they will get quite some air time, simply because they are the AfD and a) they like to give out shock messages and later track back to get publicity and b) the more left-leaning media like to lambast whatever they do as right-wing populism. Both sides will ensure there will be coverage on them.

The common feeling about the SPD voting for another grand coalition here seems to be that this is another period of Merkel, bought with the death of the SPD, one of the oldest parties in German politics. It seems quite certain that any future positives will be attributed to the CDU as leading party, with the SPD as a hanger-on that can't really profile themselves on anything like they might be able to as an opposition party. I personally also don't see them doing anything grand that would change the public opinion on them. Granted, the FDP was almost beat into inexistence and manage to come back, but much of that might be due to protest votes against CDU/SPD and less because people actually strongly believed in any FDP positions - so, yeah, I think it's safe to say the future of the SPD is very bleak after this decision, unless they deliver some miracle in the next years.


And just a quick reply in regards to those crime stats and the refugee topic:
I've been looking through a few statistics over the last weeks, some articles, some more biased than others, and I'm still not really sure where the truth lies. Which, in itself, is a bit disheartening. For the record, I see myself somewhere center to center-left. However, there were quite a few stories and revelations over the last weeks that really make me think our current government has a more and more visible agenda to suppress any evidence pointing towards fraudulent asylum claims and problems with integration. I've lurked on a German forum with a slightly more right-wing feel than dakkadakka, and people there posted side-by-side comparisons on some German and some Austrian/Swiss newspaper articles about certain crime waves or the latest (attempted) honor killings and stabbings around - to keep it short, even I got the feeling that there's a tendency in the media to sweep backgrounds and nationalities under the rug when another young girl gets stabbed to death by her ex-boyfriend and his friends, but an absolute day-long media outrage when there's a hint of right-wing violence in the air. And it creates the feeling that there's a narrative here - the Nazis are an ever-present threat to be kept in mind at all times, but another girl raped and killed by refugees is, of course, an individual case and not part of a larger, statistically significant development.

The most recent story that really ruffled my feathers:

In Essen there is a local volunteer NGO that is called "Tafel" that collects supermarket food that would be thrown away otherwise and distributes it to the hungry poor. Many of these organizations throughout Germany do a terrific job of making sure food is not wasted and the poorest can benefit from it. Now, a few days ago, the Essener Tafel announced that, unfortunately, they would stop taking new non-German applicants (people don't just show up from time to time, they are on organized lists to make food distribution more efficient). Their explanation is that, over the last few months, the number of refugee or migrant benefactors of the Tafel food has risen from somewhere around 20-30% to 75% incredibly fast, so that they are now by far outnumbering the German poor still coming to get their food rations there. Furthermore, there have apparently been a few scuffles, so the Tafel organisators decided to take this step to stop any more (important) non-German applicants so that their long-standing German "customer base" doesn't get completely driven out percentage-wise.

Now, there was a huge media uproar about it. With some articles being closer to the truth than others. What irks me most is that one of the Green party officials immediately tweeted about "The Tafel only serving food to Germans now" and claimed racism and extreme right-wing ideology being the reason for the Tafel's decision. And this is simply a bold lie, the Tafel is keeping its 75% refugee/migrant clientele - they are still giving 75% of their food to migrants and refugees, not NOTHING like her tweet claimed. They just don't want to increase that percentage any further, temporarily. But that's the spin that was immediately put on this Tafel decision, that it's a blunt racist decision to take food supply away from migrants. And bear in mind, this is a volunteer NGO with no obligations to the state. Hell, Merkel herself said she disapproved of this decision.
And that works into what one of my countrymen posted higher up - politicians in ivory towers disapproving of decisions made by volunteer helpers in the field, decision made by people who actually do the fething work of helping the migrants and refugees, seeing them everyday and doing what they can. And when they get overwhelmed and say "We can't do more than this right now, we need to pull the brake here for a second" then the left-wing politicians swoop in from their cushy political jobs and upper-class mansions to claim racism.

Eh, that turned out to be a bit of a rant. Was just supposed to be an example of how the refugee and migrant situation here binds into internal politics and voter decisions. If I got some part of the story wrong, please feel free to correct me, other Germans.

It seems quite certain that any future positives will be attributed to the CDU as leading party, with the SPD as a hanger-on that can't really profile themselves on anything like they might be able to as an opposition party.

The SPD is quite odd in this as they actually don't seem to want their positive contributions to be recognized. Say what you will about Schröder, but the SPD probably saved the German economy with those reforms (and Merkel has been leeching off that success since 2005), but they don't want to have anything to do with it. The CDU will take what they get, though, and make the SPD take the blame if possible. IMO the SPD has the most terrible tacticians of the bigger parties.
(To see where I'm coming from, I lean towards the FDP (for the US people: liberal does not mean the same thing in the German political continuum as in the US, our liberals tend to lean center-right-ish).

As to the Tafel story, I agree, it's ridiculous. If I had been the boss of the Essen Tafel, I would have told them all to go f* themselves and closed the doors or renamed my organization "Food for Grandmas and single moms, others need not apply".

 Witzkatz wrote:

The most recent story that really ruffled my feathers:

...Now, a few days ago, the Essener Tafel announced that, unfortunately, they would stop taking new non-German applicants ... Their explanation is that, over the last few months, the number of refugee or migrant benefactors of the Tafel food has risen from somewhere around 20-30% to 75% incredibly fast, so that they are now by far outnumbering the German poor still coming to get their food rations there. Furthermore, there have apparently been a few scuffles, so the Tafel organisators decided to take this step to stop any more (important) non-German applicants so that their long-standing German "customer base" doesn't get completely driven out percentage-wise.

...What irks me most is that one of the Green party officials immediately tweeted about "The Tafel only serving food to Germans now" and claimed racism and extreme right-wing ideology being the reason for the Tafel's decision. And this is simply a bold lie, the Tafel is keeping its 75% refugee/migrant clientele - they are still giving 75% of their food to migrants and refugees, not NOTHING like her tweet claimed. They just don't want to increase that percentage any further, temporarily. But that's the spin that was immediately put on this Tafel decision, that it's a blunt racist decision to take food supply away from migrants. And bear in mind, this is a volunteer NGO with no obligations to the state.

How is that not treating Germans preferentially to non-Germans? Giving preferential access to a service based on the nationality of someone is the very definition of Xenophobia. It also perfectly fits the way people use the word racism currently, and I would be surprised if it did not breach German equality laws. The fact that they are a volunteer NGO is irrelevant.

The important question is why 75% of the people applying food aid are migrants, who make up about only a few per cent of the total German population, rather than German citizens.

I think the key thing is to understand why this is happening before we rush to blame anyone in particular.

As to the Tafel story, I agree, it's ridiculous. If I had been the boss of the Essen Tafel, I would have told them all to go f* themselves and closed the doors or renamed my organization "Food for Grandmas and single moms, others need not apply".

And they have been sued now by some political fringe party, I think. Which is a bit of a weird way to go about it, because if they get sued, they'll probably have to close shop and then there will be no food distributions at all anymore, neither for Germans nor for refugees.

How is that not treating Germans preferentially to non-Germans?

Of course, it's singling out a group. However, the Essener Tafel is not alone in this, other Tafeln have just used different demographics to cope with a ridiculous amount of demand and little supply. Another Tafel, for example, stopped accepting applications from young, single men - with the argument that especially the elderly are more liable to fall sick when deprived of proper food. Make of that what you will, our charitable food NGOs seem to be at absolute capacity, something that nobody is happy with, but everybody tries to compensate one way or the other.

The important question is why 75% of the people applying food aid are migrants, who make up about only a few per cent of the total German population, rather than German citizens.

I think the key thing is to understand why this is happening before we rush to blame anyone in particular.

It's a very important question for sure, especially since Germany spends at absolute minimum 2000 € per month per refugee, a multiple of that for minors - food shortage should not be an issue with the funds at hand, but it seems to be the case.

A cause of this might be one of the most critical points in recent years regarding to immigration: If a refugee applicant is denied asylum here, they are usually supposed to be sent back to their home country. However, if a refugee then refuses to state his country of origin, he can't be sent home. (And of course they have no passports and official documentation.) As a result, they are officially "tolerated" - their asylum claim denied, but no way to send them anywhere, so they are "kind of" allowed to stay here, but without the support network and financial input that accepted refugees get.

It's one of the weirdest situations I've heard of in the last years. And with no clear way to solve it. If you can't send them home because you don't know where they are from, at least maybe try to integrate and support them better by putting them in the same networks and help institutions as the accepted refugess, I'd say - but that would be, in the end, completely negating the idea of being able to deny an asylum claim on solid arguments, because they would be accepted nevertheless in the end.

Some AfD guys suggested that you might want to put asylum seekers who forgot which country they are from into detention until they remember where they are from, but I guess we can agree that would be a bit of a sledgehammer approach to the problem...

And they have been sued now by some political fringe party, I think.

Yeah, the ADD, which is an Erdogan puppet party.

but without the support network and financial input that accepted refugees get

Nah, they are not allowed to work, but still get housing paid for by the state plus 350ish Euros a month.
As an accepted asylum seeker you are allowed to work and - if you don't get a job - you get about 50 Euros more.

The important question is why 75% of the people applying food aid are migrants, who make up about only a few per cent of the total German population, rather than German citizens.

Particularly older people are ashamed to use that service and many migrants send money home - so every cent you don't spend on food you can send home or blow on stuff. Western Union is currently having a field day.

Some AfD guys suggested that you might want to put asylum seekers who forgot which country they are from into detention until they remember where they are from, but I guess we can agree that would be a bit of a sledgehammer approach to the problem...

That's a bit harsh. I'd give them a broom to keep them occupied with daily payouts. No show no money.

Just a few statements from these Tafel NGOs translated to get a picture of it:

In lower Bavaria, they had days where they had open doors for everyone - and about 80% migrants and refugees came, with just 20% Germans. The local volunteers stated there was a lot of shuffling, shoving and physicality, and they realized less and less Germans are coming on these days. As a result, they are now delivering food especially to elderly Germans on another day, because those guys are not coming into the Tafel anymore.

In Brandenburg, due to the huge number of refugees and migrants coming, the Tafel decided to open for Germans only on two days, and all other days reserved for those migrants and refugees. As a result, the Germans felt singled out and discriminated against.

So, there's shortage of food and of available logistics and aid workers everywhere, but everybody is trying to cope. One way or the other, they run into issues. The Essener Tafel with they temporary stop in taking on refugees and migrants argued that they want to avoid "Social Envy" in literal translation from the native Germans when 80-90% of the food would go to refugees and migrants and so little to them. Make of that what you will.


Overall, the Tafel volunteers "in the field" feel left alone by the politicians in this, with mostly critique coming down from up top. Some Bavarian volunteers basically asked Merkel to come down there and work the counter in one of their places for a week and then re-think her disapproving remarks. (Because, the whole situation begs the question: In a country supposedly as rich and socialist/social-democratic as Germany, why is there even a need for a crapton of volunteer NGOs collecting donations to feed increasing numbers of poor people? What's the state doing, while it's criticizing volunteer aid workers trying to do what they can?)


That our political parties are kind of all over the left-right spectrum these days can be seen when on of the most prominent politicians of "Die Linke", the traditionally most leftist party in current-times Germany apart from fringe parties like the communists, is defending the Tafeln for their decisions while Merkel as a CDU politician, from the traditionally strong center-right conservative party, is bashing them...

I was wondering that myself.

However, since about a million refugees and migrants arrived in a year or two, it's a lot of new people to integrate even for a big, rich country like Germany.

It seems as if the government is happy to make use of vounteers to do various kinds of social tasks, but at the same time to subject them to the kind of regulation and criticism that normally you would only expect to impose on actual staff members.

, it's a lot of new people to integrate even for a big, rich country like Germany.

The issue that many people have is that about 70% of those new people are young men with zero skills that would be applicable in a first world work market. In fact, there are so many young men in there that the age cohort of 14-30 is badly lopsided now, with 10% of it filled by the new refugees/immigrants with hardly any females. It's easy to say " look you guys are 80 million, what's a million more, not even 2%" if you ignore that this will look very different in the very near future. Also, there are currently only 15 million actual taxpayers in the country who have to prop it all up*. Civil servants do pay taxes, but to be fair - that money comes from the 15 million first, it's a booking trick. In any case the social system is, in my opinion, a huge pull factor that leads to people without skills coming here for a free lunch while the people you could integrate well go to the US mostly - they've got themselves to sell for a good price that makes work more appealing than getting the equivalent of food stamps. I'm not a huge fan of Milton Friedman, but he was, in my opinion, correct, when he said: you can have a social state or open borders, not both. (Because you will very rapidly run out of money if more and more people come and at some point the guys paying for it all - and for whom the system was actually created in case they fell into unemployment for a short while, solidarity between workers and such - will ask themselves why they're paying through the nose for the life-long welfare of people who have not and probably won't ever contribute to the system and don't even come from the same cultural background. And that's when it's going to get ugly and as such I'm really wondering why our government is playing so fast and loose with this issue.

*I'm actually an average German taxpayer - I earn pretty much the median income - which means that last year on July 20th was the first day of the year that I worked for money that went into my own pocket. Just saying. (Actually this would be the case if I wasn't married and didn't have an even worse tax class. My personal point was probably somewhere in August. The last time I did some extra work for my company I earned an extra 1750 Euros gross that translated into 715 net, the state took a nice and dandy 60% of the money I earned. Guess what I'm not going to spend any more evenings on. It's not worth it. And that is why I am really not a big fan of the socialist bloat that has taken over during the last 25 years. It kills off the drive to achieve more because you're hardly allowed to savour successes, and I believe that that is what gets socialist countries killed. There's no reason to try to be better - unless you know a guy who knows a guy in the nomenclatura.

@Kilkrazy: Yeah, I've been getting that feeling, too.

And - don't get me wrong, I think it's admirable that quite an amount of money is put into integration efforts for the refugees - there are also some instances of gross mismanagement or overspending which can be a bit disillusioning.


Oh, on the topic of Merkel's quote about the no-go areas - it's a bit ambiguous. I think I found the original quote from her interview. She was asked about what "Zero tolerance" in the context of internal security means to her, and one of her answering sentences can best be translated to "That means that there are no no-go-areas." - Leaving it kind of open if she means these shouldn't start to exist or if she means they exist already and need to be stopped. Not really sure about it from my point of view.

 Witzkatz wrote:

Oh, on the topic of Merkel's quote about the no-go areas - it's a bit ambiguous. I think I found the original quote from her interview. She was asked about what "Zero tolerance" in the context of internal security means to her, and one of her answering sentences can best be translated to "That means that there are no no-go-areas." - Leaving it kind of open if she means these shouldn't start to exist or if she means they exist already and need to be stopped. Not really sure about it from my point of view.

It is ambigious, but she seems to imply that they might exist in relation to crime and such, not the refugee 'wave' of 2015/2016 as some tried to make it seem. Which is the important distinction when the concept of no-go areas is brought up, as its heavily used by right wing politicians to link it to immigrants/Islam, what Merkel wasn't implying.


Also, I found the study but can't properly link it from my phone. The 10% rise in violent crime headline's impact is much reduced when actually looking at the provided statistics over the 20 year observation period. Violent crime seems to have increased around the mid 2000's as well, with no 2015/2016 refugee 'wave'. So I'm falling on the side of yes, certain migrants do contribute to crime, but overall it doesn't seem disproportionate for the majority of them compared to 'Germans'. Only a small part of asylum seekers really drive up the numbers, the ones with nothing to lose and already set for deportation so to speak.

I think it perfectly reasonable to discriminate/direct what demographic your aid goes to. Every charity does it to some degree. If I set up a charity to help out old people with chores, I'm immediately excluding helping out young disabled people with them. That's not automatically bad. It just means that they weren't the target demographic.

Likewise, if I set up a food aid organisation for my locals, I'm under no obligation to suddenly start providing food for a massive surge of foreigners who just show up one year. Sure, it didn't say 'locals only' when I started it; but that's because that massive need for food aid for migrants didn't exist when I set up shop. My intended target demographic was the locals, and whilst I'm happy to help a number of them out; my purpose was to help out the locals when I started up.

Decrying the group for not servicing anyone and everyone is silly beyond measure, and would ruin the charity sector if applied that way. 'What? You're a Jewish charity who goes around to help out families with Alzheimers sufferers? But you only help families registered at your local synagogue? Disgraceful! You have to service ALL families with Alzheimer's sufferers'. etcetc.

Charities can spend their money however they choose, so long as it is in line with their declared mandate. They're not governments.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
For what its worth, trying to find the study I saw this on Reuters, key part:

Violent crime rose by about 10 percent in 2015 and 2016, a study showed. It attributed more than 90 percent of that to young male refugees.

It noted, however, that migrants settling from war-torn countries such as Syria were much less likely to commit violent crimes that those from other places who were unlikely to be given asylum.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-crime/violent-crime-rises-in-germany-and-is-attributed-to-refugees-idUSKBN1ES16J

So maybe we can drop the refugees=crime for now. As it seems mainly driven by asylum seekers versus Syrian/Iraqi refugees from the 2015-2016 wave.

Ah, so 90% of the 10% increase. Go it

So I'm falling on the side of yes, certain migrants do contribute to crime, but overall it doesn't seem disproportionate for the majority of them compared to 'Germans'.

Depends on the home country. There are statistics for this, a dude from Guinea-Bissau in Germany is 48 times more likely a murder suspect than an ethnic German - given that murder is solved in over 90% of cases, this should be relatively accurate. Algerians are apparently really big at theft, harassment and rape (and over 60% of the Algerians living in Germany are "known to the police").

Check these numbers, particularly the last sheet (Tabelle 4) that shows the factors (sorry, this doesn't seem to exist in English, although a guy from the Australian National University did the math).
(Disclaimer: this is a conservative blog).
https://www.tichyseinblick.de/gastbeitrag/wenig-bekannte-fakten-zur-auslaenderkriminalitaet-in-deutschland/
Leben is murder/manslaughter, sexuelle Selbstbestimmung is rape and harassment, Rohheit is assault&battery, then several degrees of theft, the last one is drugs.

I think I need more Japanese friends, these dudes are safe .

Is that taking into account potential differences in the propensity of various nationalities to be reported for crimes though? As an example, if the prevailing perception in a society is that Poles steal bikes, it stands to reason that someone reporting that his bicycle has been stolen by a Pole is more likely to be believed than someone who reports that her bicycle was stolen by a Slovakian, for instance, assuming all else is equal.

XuQishi wrote:

So I'm falling on the side of yes, certain migrants do contribute to crime, but overall it doesn't seem disproportionate for the majority of them compared to 'Germans'.

Depends on the home country. There are statistics for this, a dude from Guinea-Bissau in Germany is 48 times more likely a murder suspect than an ethnic German - given that murder is solved in over 90% of cases, this should be relatively accurate. Algerians are apparently really big at theft, harassment and rape (and over 60% of the Algerians living in Germany are "known to the police").

Check these numbers, particularly the last sheet (Tabelle 4) that shows the factors (sorry, this doesn't seem to exist in English, although a guy from the Australian National University did the math).
(Disclaimer: this is a conservative blog).
https://www.tichyseinblick.de/gastbeitrag/wenig-bekannte-fakten-zur-auslaenderkriminalitaet-in-deutschland/
Leben is murder/manslaughter, sexuelle Selbstbestimmung is rape and harassment, Rohheit is assault&battery, then several degrees of theft, the last one is drugs.

I think I need more Japanese friends, these dudes are safe .

I can read it just fine us Dutchies haven't forgotten our Deutsch , although the article is less interesting than the pure statistics of the BKA and Destatis Statistiches Bundesamt. I already said it depends, but the article's way of presenting statistics involves a bit of handwaving, mainly because the article involves ALL Germans, including your 80 year old grandma who isn't about to murder or rape anytime soon (we all hope). While certain economic migrant groups are almost completely dominated by around 20 year old males, which shifts the perception heavily as it doesn't have the downplaying elements the entire German population has. For example, in 2016, German males between 14 to 25 years old were responsible for half of the German rape and sexual assault numbers, taking out women that age group leaves you with roughly 6% of the German population which translates into a rate of about 0.03%. When I take Syrians in Germany for rape and sexual assault statistics, I get around 0.034% (slightly higher, but not enough to round up). Algerians do seem over-represented, but that might have to do with sample size, which will I get back to later (although their rate is relatively high regardless).

Taking the example of Guinea, German men between 14-25 are responsible for about 1 out of 7 murders or a rate of 0.002%, while those from Guinea do seem to have an incredible percentage of 0.02, which sounds like 10 times the rate of Germans. However, the rate for Guineans is based on just 2 murders on a population of around 7.000 or so, this means to statistically rank below Germans, they would have to murder nobody! Syrians for example are at about 0.004%.

This is why statistics create the wrong impressions, for certain groups you're dealing with a tiny sample compared to a massive and diverse German sample. Like this: Eritreans are much less bloodthirsty than Germans, why? Because only 1 Eritrean was suspected of murder in 2016, against a population of around 60.000, which creates a rate of 0.001%. It doesn't mean anything when its that low, because the next year they could murder no one (a decline of 1 murder), a feat the German population would never be able to accomplish.

In essence, yes certain migrant backgrounds are more prone to crime statistically speaking, but that is looking at statistics in a vacuum, while being statistically negligible for the most part. Now involve things like socio-economics, age, sex etc. and the view gets much more nuanced. Its nowhere near as bad as some media tries to make it out to be, it just seems disproportionate because their populations are represented in Germany disproportionately.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Is that taking into account potential differences in the propensity of various nationalities to be reported for crimes though? As an example, if the prevailing perception in a society is that Poles steal bikes, it stands to reason that someone reporting that his bicycle has been stolen by a Pole is more likely to be believed than someone who reports that her bicycle was stolen by a Slovakian, for instance, assuming all else is equal.

This can come into play as well, as the statistics are about suspects, not convictions on nationality.

I exalted that post, I think this is a fun discussion. I think I'm not on the same side as you, but so far I'm finding this quite respectful, which is sadly something that is often missing when people talk about politics. .

I do agree with your reading, what seems to have changed in the last couple of years is the quality of crimes, though. There are a lot of people know who get knifed in the streets (the last one in the news was a teen who stabbed another teen over a religious dispute), that was very uncommon before outside of gang related crimes. Also, paramedics and firemen were not people that you attack while they're helping you.

I think actually one of the barriers of integration is that our way of doing business does not command respect, it's all very soft and understanding, which the people from the south apparently are not used to and what does not seem to be taken seriously. Basically the judicative and executive look like they're easily duped because on the other hand, we're not prepared to deal with people who don't inherently respect the rules at least somehow.

his can come into play as well, as the statistics are about suspects, not convictions on nationality.

Dunno, all I could find on that topic was police saying that it wasn't a big thing as people don't usually say "oh, the guy who raped or mugged me was a white guy, I'll give him a pass".

But rape is a crime with a notoriously low reporting rate. The unlikeliness of giving someone a pass for rape would be a point if the overwhelming majority of rapes were reported, but they likely aren't.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

In essence, yes certain migrant backgrounds are more prone to crime statistically speaking, but that is looking at statistics in a vacuum, while being statistically negligible for the most part. Now involve things like socio-economics, age, sex etc. and the view gets much more nuanced. Its nowhere near as bad as some media tries to make it out to be, it just seems disproportionate because their populations are represented in Germany disproportionately.

This is broadly correct. I chewed some data once upon a time over sexual offence rates here in the UK from people of alternative nationalities. Statistically speaking, you had a far higher proportion of sexual offences from people of some specific nationalities than other ones. But as is pointed out above; you then have to consider other factors; such as the prevalence of young men within a working immigrant population (as opposed to babies or old people, or women, all of which generally commit far less in the way of such offences). You can't completely encapsulate these statistics in isolation. They can however, be a useful exercise in allowing you to direct further more focused research.

To carry on with the above example, if you can take two immigrant populations from a similar part of the world who are largely young males, and one has twice the number of sexual offences per head of the other one; then you need to search out why that might be. To take an example AlmightyWalrus gave earlier in the thread, it could well be that one grouping is being misidentified as another when reporting is being done. It could be that one population is predominantly made up of wealthier grouping, or of a different religious bent. But you wouldn't be able to tell if these were factors without much further research and testing.

Statistics are dangerous things. Rely on them for mass generalisations about people at your peril.

To carry on with the above example, if you can take two immigrant populations from a similar part of the world who are largely young males, and one has twice the number of sexual offences per head of the other one; then you need to search out why that might be.

I think the two Congo states are interesting there, even more so as the people from the much poorer one are "more harmless".

XuQishi wrote:
I exalted that post, I think this is a fun discussion. I think I'm not on the same side as you, but so far I'm finding this quite respectful, which is sadly something that is often missing when people talk about politics. .

I do agree with your reading, what seems to have changed in the last couple of years is the quality of crimes, though. There are a lot of people know who get knifed in the streets (the last one in the news was a teen who stabbed another teen over a religious dispute), that was very uncommon before outside of gang related crimes. Also, paramedics and firemen were not people that you attack while they're helping you.

I think actually one of the barriers of integration is that our way of doing business does not command respect, it's all very soft and understanding, which the people from the south apparently are not used to and what does not seem to be taken seriously. Basically the judicative and executive look like they're easily duped because on the other hand, we're not prepared to deal with people who don't inherently respect the rules at least somehow.

his can come into play as well, as the statistics are about suspects, not convictions on nationality.

Dunno, all I could find on that topic was police saying that it wasn't a big thing as people don't usually say "oh, the guy who raped or mugged me was a white guy, I'll give him a pass".

Yes, crimes change over the years, some go up and some go down. Its too early to say if that is an indication of a new trend or just something that is 'big' a few years before going down. Changes might also occur due to domestic changes, not necessarily population changes.

As for violence against first responders, that doesn't only happen in Germany, it was on the increase for the latter part of the 2000's in the Netherlands as well, however its platforming currently and no longer increasing, even though we had the European migrant waves of 2015/2016. Does that mean our migrants/refugees are different? If it was on the rise before 2015/2016, how can it be attributed to the new arrivals? There is more to these incidents than pure immigration numbers. The criminal underworld in the Netherlands for example is being taken over/dominated by 3rd and 4th generation immigrants, while it used to be by 'ethnic Dutch' so to speak. Yet their parents or even their grandparents have also been born here, they speak perfect Dutch and are not that distinguishable from the 'Dutch' generation. So integration doesn't have to be the issue, its society and the culture as a whole that might feed certain trends. Sweden gets mentioned a lot in certain circles, but their rates are only going up because the definitions are broadening. Similarly crime in the years 2015/2016 isn't that significantly higher than parts of the 2000's in Germany. Eventually society just reaches a point of diminishing returns, 0 isn't going to be achievable. But when that point gets reached, a sudden population increase of give or take a million will make the number rise and logically be heavily based on the new population.

As for the "white guy" thing, that wasn't necessarily the point. The point was more that it involves suspects, so in one case you could have only 1 viable one, while in another 4 for example. So you would have to know in how many cases with one perpetrator you have 1 white suspect versus 4 migrant ones or vice versa. Statistics on suspects don't account for that as far as I know.

Opinions can differ of course, as its hard to pinpoint the reasons. I view it as a socio-economic side effect mainly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

XuQishi wrote:

To carry on with the above example, if you can take two immigrant populations from a similar part of the world who are largely young males, and one has twice the number of sexual offences per head of the other one; then you need to search out why that might be.

I think the two Congo states are interesting there, even more so as the people from the much poorer one are "more harmless".

Well looking at the German statistics again, both Congo states are pretty close crime wise, although its hard to find population statistics in Germany about them so no good way to explain the slight differences.

 Witzkatz wrote:
Like people before me said, the AfD will be part of the opposition. I think they will get quite some air time, simply because they are the AfD and a) they like to give out shock messages and later track back to get publicity and b) the more left-leaning media like to lambast whatever they do as right-wing populism. Both sides will ensure there will be coverage on them.

The common feeling about the SPD voting for another grand coalition here seems to be that this is another period of Merkel, bought with the death of the SPD, one of the oldest parties in German politics. It seems quite certain that any future positives will be attributed to the CDU as leading party, with the SPD as a hanger-on that can't really profile themselves on anything like they might be able to as an opposition party. I personally also don't see them doing anything grand that would change the public opinion on them. Granted, the FDP was almost beat into inexistence and manage to come back, but much of that might be due to protest votes against CDU/SPD and less because people actually strongly believed in any FDP positions - so, yeah, I think it's safe to say the future of the SPD is very bleak after this decision, unless they deliver some miracle in the next years.


And just a quick reply in regards to those crime stats and the refugee topic:
I've been looking through a few statistics over the last weeks, some articles, some more biased than others, and I'm still not really sure where the truth lies. Which, in itself, is a bit disheartening. For the record, I see myself somewhere center to center-left. However, there were quite a few stories and revelations over the last weeks that really make me think our current government has a more and more visible agenda to suppress any evidence pointing towards fraudulent asylum claims and problems with integration. I've lurked on a German forum with a slightly more right-wing feel than dakkadakka, and people there posted side-by-side comparisons on some German and some Austrian/Swiss newspaper articles about certain crime waves or the latest (attempted) honor killings and stabbings around - to keep it short, even I got the feeling that there's a tendency in the media to sweep backgrounds and nationalities under the rug when another young girl gets stabbed to death by her ex-boyfriend and his friends, but an absolute day-long media outrage when there's a hint of right-wing violence in the air. And it creates the feeling that there's a narrative here - the Nazis are an ever-present threat to be kept in mind at all times, but another girl raped and killed by refugees is, of course, an individual case and not part of a larger, statistically significant development.

The most recent story that really ruffled my feathers:

In Essen there is a local volunteer NGO that is called "Tafel" that collects supermarket food that would be thrown away otherwise and distributes it to the hungry poor. Many of these organizations throughout Germany do a terrific job of making sure food is not wasted and the poorest can benefit from it. Now, a few days ago, the Essener Tafel announced that, unfortunately, they would stop taking new non-German applicants (people don't just show up from time to time, they are on organized lists to make food distribution more efficient). Their explanation is that, over the last few months, the number of refugee or migrant benefactors of the Tafel food has risen from somewhere around 20-30% to 75% incredibly fast, so that they are now by far outnumbering the German poor still coming to get their food rations there. Furthermore, there have apparently been a few scuffles, so the Tafel organisators decided to take this step to stop any more (important) non-German applicants so that their long-standing German "customer base" doesn't get completely driven out percentage-wise.

Now, there was a huge media uproar about it. With some articles being closer to the truth than others. What irks me most is that one of the Green party officials immediately tweeted about "The Tafel only serving food to Germans now" and claimed racism and extreme right-wing ideology being the reason for the Tafel's decision. And this is simply a bold lie, the Tafel is keeping its 75% refugee/migrant clientele - they are still giving 75% of their food to migrants and refugees, not NOTHING like her tweet claimed. They just don't want to increase that percentage any further, temporarily. But that's the spin that was immediately put on this Tafel decision, that it's a blunt racist decision to take food supply away from migrants. And bear in mind, this is a volunteer NGO with no obligations to the state. Hell, Merkel herself said she disapproved of this decision.
And that works into what one of my countrymen posted higher up - politicians in ivory towers disapproving of decisions made by volunteer helpers in the field, decision made by people who actually do the fething work of helping the migrants and refugees, seeing them everyday and doing what they can. And when they get overwhelmed and say "We can't do more than this right now, we need to pull the brake here for a second" then the left-wing politicians swoop in from their cushy political jobs and upper-class mansions to claim racism.

Eh, that turned out to be a bit of a rant. Was just supposed to be an example of how the refugee and migrant situation here binds into internal politics and voter decisions. If I got some part of the story wrong, please feel free to correct me, other Germans.

Interesting that Merkel admitted to the mythical "no go" zones a fee days ago.

You didn't read the thread at all, did you Frazzled?

Yeah, I was going to say...I posted a literal translation with context of the alleged statement on this very page of the thread. It's not a cut and dry admission, more something the usual "could mean this, could mean that" poltical wording that is so common these days.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You didn't read the thread at all, did you Frazzled?

I did. Just disagreeing with her intent of the statement.

What are the chances of a far right party coming up there? Need to know in case we have to break the glass on the DO NOT OPEN EXCEPT IN CASE OF NAZI INVASION zombie Zhukov vault.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You didn't read the thread at all, did you Frazzled?

I did. Just disagreeing with her intent of the statement.

What are the chances of a far right party coming up there? Need to know in case we have to break the glass on the DO NOT OPEN EXCEPT IN CASE OF NAZI INVASION zombie Zhukov vault.

We, comrade?

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You didn't read the thread at all, did you Frazzled?

I did. Just disagreeing with her intent of the statement.

What are the chances of a far right party coming up there? Need to know in case we have to break the glass on the DO NOT OPEN EXCEPT IN CASE OF NAZI INVASION zombie Zhukov vault.

Just to be clear, what do you think her intent and concept behind no-go zones was then?

Also the chances of a far right party coming up? Last I checked the party being led by people who consider Holocaust memorials to bring shame upon Germans and who think Germans should be proud of the Wehrmacht got 1/8th of the vote in this election. I would say we already passed the stage of the far right just "coming up".

By coming up I mean realistic chance of taking over.

 Frazzled wrote:
By coming up I mean realistic chance of taking over.

Well never say never of course, but they're a pretty long way off. No party is big enough to rule alone, currently nobody seems really willing to form a coalition government with them if they even get the chance and it remains to be seen if they can even attract enough votes (or even significantly increase their current share) to become the biggest party in Germany with how the AFD is perceived by a lot of Germans.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You didn't read the thread at all, did you Frazzled?

I did. Just disagreeing with her intent of the statement.

What are the chances of a far right party coming up there? Need to know in case we have to break the glass on the DO NOT OPEN EXCEPT IN CASE OF NAZI INVASION zombie Zhukov vault.

Just to be clear, what do you think her intent and concept behind no-go zones was then?

Also the chances of a far right party coming up? Last I checked the party being led by people who consider Holocaust memorials to bring shame upon Germans and who think Germans should be proud of the Wehrmacht got 1/8th of the vote in this election. I would say we already passed the stage of the far right just "coming up".

If that's true. Well then yes the right has got up and it's walking.

However...
That does not happen overnight. The growth will not have been last month, or even last year. That only happens over multiple years and a longer period.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You didn't read the thread at all, did you Frazzled?

I did. Just disagreeing with her intent of the statement.

What are the chances of a far right party coming up there? Need to know in case we have to break the glass on the DO NOT OPEN EXCEPT IN CASE OF NAZI INVASION zombie Zhukov vault.

Just to be clear, what do you think her intent and concept behind no-go zones was then?

Also the chances of a far right party coming up? Last I checked the party being led by people who consider Holocaust memorials to bring shame upon Germans and who think Germans should be proud of the Wehrmacht got 1/8th of the vote in this election. I would say we already passed the stage of the far right just "coming up".

If that's true. Well then yes the right has got up and it's walking.

However...
That does not happen overnight. The growth will not have been last month, or even last year. That only happens over multiple years and a longer period.

Well a lot of AfD voters get attracted to the 'populist' attitude of being anti of what the government and most other parties are more positive towards (I believe almost all parties are/used to be pretty positive to taking in refugees besides the AfD), they grew because of the Eurozone troubles and the refugee crisis. Its political opportunism, most of their voters aren't far right, just right and the AfD tried hard to hide it up to the elections, but the AfD really was the big alternative if not a very good one. The people running the AfD however are pretty much far right adjacent and comfortable about it in public, there was even that falling out that led to their more moderate leader (Petry) leaving just hours after the election to become an independent. Petry really was the one trying to downplay certain sentiments to try and get those votes. As I said earlier in this thread, the AfD is a kind of protest party, they are against a lot of things, but not with all too clear idea about what they want to do themselves. It will be interesting to see if the party can get its act together, but with the cartoon caricatures running the show, I'm not going to bet on it. So its likely those voters will just end up dissapointed.

Its political opportunism, most of their voters aren't far right, just right and the AfD tried hard to hide it up to the elections, but the AfD really was the big alternative if not a very good one.

I agree with this, IMO most of the people who voted AfD did it because basically all other parties share the same vision to a degree that people have started making jokes about the return of the GDR with its pseudo-parliament. I don't think that most of their voters are far right, it's just the one option to actually ring the bell. I don't think the rest really got the message, though, although the FDP at least showed some grace (I know that the media say they chickened out, but I think Lindner did the right thing. The party would not have survived being the voting cattle for a black-green government. Also, only about 10% of German political journalists say they're conservatives or liberals while roughly 40% tend toward the Greens, so I do get the feeling that there's a lot of revenge writing going on because the Greens didn't get to rule when the FDP said they would pull out).

Anyway:
You know that stuff is going wrong in your political spectrum when there's a peaceful protest against the conservative chancellor and the police has to protect the protesters from the Antifa. The whole situation in this country has become ridiculous because there weren't really any political wings to choose for quite some time.

The growth will not have been last month, or even last year.

That party is basically 5 years old and started out as a neoconservative party by a few euroskeptic academics. It wasn't a growth, it was an explosion post-2015. Zero to 14% in two elections, and they failed to get into the Bundestag the first time. In the polls, they're overtaking the SPD which used to take up to 40%, but like all other european social democrats sort of died very quickly recently.

XuQishi wrote:

Its political opportunism, most of their voters aren't far right, just right and the AfD tried hard to hide it up to the elections, but the AfD really was the big alternative if not a very good one.

I agree with this, IMO most of the people who voted AfD did it because basically all other parties share the same vision to a degree that people have started making jokes about the return of the GDR with its pseudo-parliament. I don't think that most of their voters are far right, it's just the one option to actually ring the bell. I don't think the rest really got the message, though, although the FDP at least showed some grace (I know that the media say they chickened out, but I think Lindner did the right thing. The party would not have survived being the voting cattle for a black-green government. Also, only about 10% of German political journalists say they're conservatives or liberals while roughly 40% tend toward the Greens, so I do get the feeling that there's a lot of revenge writing going on because the Greens didn't get to rule when the FDP said they would pull out).

Anyway:
You know that stuff is going wrong in your political spectrum when there's a peaceful protest against the conservative chancellor and the police has to protect the protesters from the Antifa. The whole situation in this country has become ridiculous because there weren't really any political wings to choose for quite some time.

To be fair, the FDP voters seem to be quite fickle, with not 10 years ago having dipped under the required 5%, so it really makes sense that the media don't really reflect that party much, because there isn't much representation of the party in society.

As for the pseudo-parliament joke. In a sense the parties were a decent reflection of German society until about 2009, things were going relatively well for the majority of Germans and there wasn't much need to change things up. The Eurozone crisis and the Refugee crisis provided alternative views for those in former East-Germany who might still have felt to be left behind and those for whom the SPD and CDU/CSU weren't tough enough on their issues. Its great for those people, but it sucks that the only place they can go is a party that is run by individuals best left at the margins of society. Therein lies the problem, to most of us more along the center-left axis the AfD is repulsive because of its leaders, yet how much can we blame voters with no alternative to vote for those leaders? Personally I still find it distasteful with the full historical knowledge behind what representatives of said party have proclaimed to vote for the AfD, yet those voters might feel like being stuck between a rock and a hard place with the AfD versus the other parties.

Some difficult motivations to consider, but the AfD won't provide those people with an answer because its driving out the moderates. Sadly for their voters, the collapse of the AfD (while I would cheer that on) might possibly also mean the collapse of any other attempt to have a different political party from the current ones, as the perception could be created that they are doomed to fail or aimed at the far right (even if most of the majority of AfD voters might not be).

XuQishi wrote:

The growth will not have been last month, or even last year.

That party is basically 5 years old and started out as a neoconservative party by a few euroskeptic academics. It wasn't a growth, it was an explosion post-2015. Zero to 14% in two elections, and they failed to get into the Bundestag the first time. In the polls, they're overtaking the SPD which used to take up to 40%, but like all other european social democrats sort of died very quickly recently.

Well they went to 12.6%. In the 2013 elections they got 4.7% of the vote, just .3% under the voting threshold. But the 2015 explosion due to the Refugee crisis was really their best case scenario to grow, the question is if that best case scenario growth is sustainable. Certainly doubtful with the state of the party.

so it really makes sense that the media don't really reflect that party much

It's not missing coverage, it's a lot of coverage that puts the blame for the failed Jamaica coalition solely on them, IMO undeservedly.

but it sucks that the only place they can go is a party that is run by individuals best left at the margins of society

Very much so. I can't tell you what I think of Höcke, Gedeon and Poggenburg, that would end up being a giant rant.

those voters might feel like being stuck between a rock and a hard place with the AfD versus the other parties

The eastern Germans used to vote for Die Linke heavily, but they would have just driven the Merkel course into overdrive and the ex-GDR-citizens aren't that big into internationalism and communism anymore. They've had enough of that, also of having to read between the lines in the news (something that is currently undergoing a reversal, though).

the question is if that best case scenario growth is sustainable

Depends on how much the next GroKo screws up, really. In today's poll they scored 16% compared to the SPD's 15.5 and the polls are difficult to read. There's a massive shy tory effect going on regarding the AfD because there have been incidences of people getting fired or otherwise disadvantaged for acknowledging to vote for them.

In the 2013 elections they got 4.7% of the vote, just .3% under the voting threshold.

That was a terrible election overall, IMO. It ended up with about 16% of the valid votes circling down the drain with no representation in the parliament. Good thing that didn't happen in 2017 again.

(Just for the record, my ideal-ish government would be a CDU-FDP coalition, but without Merkel at the helm and a programme that closely resembles their 2005 programme).

XuQishi wrote:

so it really makes sense that the media don't really reflect that party much

It's not missing coverage, it's a lot of coverage that puts the blame for the failed Jamaica coalition solely on them, IMO undeservedly.

The CDU and the Greens were closer to each other on critical points the FDP didn't agree on. So while attributing the blame solely on them is unfair, they are the ones who walked out while the other two agreed.

XuQishi wrote:

those voters might feel like being stuck between a rock and a hard place with the AfD versus the other parties

The eastern Germans used to vote for Die Linke heavily, but they would have just driven the Merkel course into overdrive and the ex-GDR-citizens aren't that big into internationalism and communism anymore. They've had enough of that, also of having to read between the lines in the news (something that is currently undergoing a reversal, though).

Heavily might be a bit of an overstatement. Die Linke only became the biggest party in a few east German states after becoming Die Linke in the mid 2000's, the SPD used to be stronger there. Its more of a gradual shift to slightly more 'radical' views from the SPD to Die Linke, but when Die Linke didn't translate the mindset of those areas they migrated to the AfD as the other one with the radical views.

XuQishi wrote:

the question is if that best case scenario growth is sustainable

Depends on how much the next GroKo screws up, really. In today's poll they scored 16% compared to the SPD's 15.5 and the polls are difficult to read. There's a massive shy tory effect going on regarding the AfD because there have been incidences of people getting fired or otherwise disadvantaged for acknowledging to vote for them.

Sure, but polls are just polls until its election time. While Merkel and co might screw up, the AfD has to manage not kneecapping itself in the coming years. You might have gotten a lot of votes, but if the party then spends 4 years fighting and destroying itself it won't make itself more attractive.

XuQishi wrote:

In the 2013 elections they got 4.7% of the vote, just .3% under the voting threshold.

That was a terrible election overall, IMO. It ended up with about 16% of the valid votes circling down the drain with no representation in the parliament. Good thing that didn't happen in 2017 again.

(Just for the record, my ideal-ish government would be a CDU-FDP coalition, but without Merkel at the helm and a programme that closely resembles their 2005 programme).

There are benefits and downsides to a threshold, the benefit being that the political landscape doesn't splinter to badly to function at times, the downside is lost votes. Coming from a PR system in the NL where we don't have a threshold, I see the other sides benefits and downsides. Neither is perfect.

Well Merkel has been relatively good for us in the Netherlands as a partner, us being so reliant on Germany after all. As for parties, the FDP broadly aligns with my foreign policy and societal views, maybe a bit too much on the business side for my taste, but there are elements I like from Die Grünen and the SPD.

 Frazzled wrote:
What are the chances of a far right party coming up there? Need to know in case we have to break the glass on the DO NOT OPEN EXCEPT IN CASE OF NAZI INVASION zombie Zhukov vault.

Maybe look into your own backyard first? The US is further along that route than Germany this time around.

 Frazzled wrote:
What are the chances of a far right party coming up there? Need to know in case we have to break the glass on the DO NOT OPEN EXCEPT IN CASE OF NAZI INVASION zombie Zhukov vault.

A Nazi invasion isn't going to happen. Even if things devolved into a total war between the domestic far right and the Islamic far right, I don't think today's far right shares Hitler's expansionist dream of conquering Russia for their Lebensraum.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
What are the chances of a far right party coming up there? Need to know in case we have to break the glass on the DO NOT OPEN EXCEPT IN CASE OF NAZI INVASION zombie Zhukov vault.

A Nazi invasion isn't going to happen. Even if things devolved into a total war between the domestic far right and the Islamic far right, I don't think today's far right shares Hitler's expansionist dream of conquering Russia for their Lebensraum.

The 'German' population is on a steady decline, were it not for immigration and such the Germans would struggle to fill the current Lebensraum in Germany itself, let alone Eastern Europe

Apart from that, the German army had one of its key logistics people release a statement a while ago that they are lacking absolute basic stuff like tents and winter gear, so I'm pretty sure Germany couldn't invade even Liechtenstein properly these days.

 Witzkatz wrote:
lacking absolute basic stuff like tents and winter gear

Well no change there then

But overall that's the story for a lot of European militaries.

I don't follow German politics that closely, but as a general observation hard line right wing parties don't often claim an all powerful share of the vote by themselves. In fact 15 to 20% seems to be a pretty firm ceiling in most cases. Le Pen getting to 34% in the last French election was quite of the ordinary, and it was still a 30 point slaughter. Even after calling a snap election after the Reichstag fire and running a week long terror campaign to scare away the wrong kind of voters, Hitler only just cracked 40% and needed coalition support to form government (the previous election that gave him power he won 33%).

This doesn't mean hard line right wing parties can't get power. But typically it happens when more moderate groups form alliances with the hard liners.

That isn't happening in Germany, is it? Any hint that it might?

XuQishi wrote:


The eastern Germans used to vote for Die Linke heavily, but they would have just driven the Merkel course into overdrive and the ex-GDR-citizens aren't that big into internationalism and communism anymore. They've had enough of that, also of having to read between the lines in the news (something that is currently undergoing a reversal, though).

But they are supportive of the GDR, if things hasn't changed these last 9 years

Dunno, that article is 9 years old and from the Spiegel, which is a giant panic-monger regardless of the topic .

I lived in the east for a few years recently, can't say that this is a huge topic for the under-50s. Note that the East Germans are on average younger than the ones in the west (which also means that the idea that some people have and loudly proclaim that the East plundered the pension fund is hogwash, that's not even how the system works).

The 'German' population is on a steady decline, were it not for immigration and such the Germans would struggle to fill the current Lebensraum in Germany itself,

Actually the Nazis had about 20 million people less to work with. Which shows how stupid that ideology is, there is, however, no actual decline. Also, what people tend to forget: fewer people need less infrastructure. And it would be good for the environment (and hey, we're world leaders in telling people how to be good to the environment. It's bloody expensive and will slow down global warming for 5 seconds and we'll have spent the money on that instead of preparing, but man, are we good at it. ).

 sebster wrote:
I don't follow German politics that closely, but as a general observation hard line right wing parties don't often claim an all powerful share of the vote by themselves. In fact 15 to 20% seems to be a pretty firm ceiling in most cases. Le Pen getting to 34% in the last French election was quite of the ordinary, and it was still a 30 point slaughter. Even after calling a snap election after the Reichstag fire and running a week long terror campaign to scare away the wrong kind of voters, Hitler only just cracked 40% and needed coalition support to form government (the previous election that gave him power he won 33%).

This doesn't mean hard line right wing parties can't get power. But typically it happens when more moderate groups form alliances with the hard liners.

That isn't happening in Germany, is it? Any hint that it might?

No hint for Germany so far. The AfD doesn't really tend to play nice with the other parties or vice versa. The fact that the AfD doesn't even want to keep a pretense of moderate approaches means that they just drive away any possible coalition. Plus it might be electoral suicide for other parties to link up with the AfD, because the voters who supported the AfD already moved over, while the majority of Germans seems to strongly dislike the AfD for obvious reasons.

Le Pen getting 34% is in part a side effect of second round French presidential elections, but as Germany doesn't have that system and multiple parties, I have a hard time seeing them reach above the 10-20% bracket. Taking into account that both the AfD and Le Pen got their election campaigns handed to them on a silver platter due to events in the last years.

Yeah, that's not going to happen, I think. If the AFD took 49% there'd be a coalition of all other parties. The rest will even let Die Linke play a part, although that party has been under scrutiny by the Verfassungsschutz for years (which is not a big wonder given the amount of ex-Stasi in that party).

XuQishi wrote:

The 'German' population is on a steady decline, were it not for immigration and such the Germans would struggle to fill the current Lebensraum in Germany itself,

Actually the Nazis had about 20 million people less to work with. Which shows how stupid that ideology is, there is, however, no actual decline. Also, what people tend to forget: fewer people need less infrastructure. And it would be good for the environment (and hey, we're world leaders in telling people how to be good to the environment. It's bloody expensive and will slow down global warming for 5 seconds and we'll have spent the money on that instead of preparing, but man, are we good at it. ).

Uhm no they didn't. The population of Germany in 39 was about 70 million, add to that the 7 million of Austria and you get 77 million of a much less diverse 'ethnic' background back then. Currently Germany has about 80 million, but only 80% is 'ethnic' German. So in reality Nazi Germany had about 10 million more Germans to work with.

Also there is actual decline. Its obvious from the birthrate of 'ethnic' Germans which is around 1.4 per couple I believe. But a couple is two people, so unless the get 2.1/3 children on average the population is declining. So yes there is actual decline, however it gets evened out by migration and birth rates of other groups in society.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
.

Le Pen getting 34% is in part a side effect of second round French presidential elections, but as Germany doesn't have that system and multiple parties, I have a hard time seeing them reach above the 10-20% bracket. Taking into account that both the AfD and Le Pen got their election campaigns handed to them on a silver platter due to events in the last years.

That and Le Pen has massively toned down the anti-European and anti-immigrant rhetoric.

While her father was openly anti-semite, anti-immigrant and anti-semite she speaks about "the values of laicism" and to "rethink the euro"

It's been a remarkable exercise of rebranding.

jouso wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
.

Le Pen getting 34% is in part a side effect of second round French presidential elections, but as Germany doesn't have that system and multiple parties, I have a hard time seeing them reach above the 10-20% bracket. Taking into account that both the AfD and Le Pen got their election campaigns handed to them on a silver platter due to events in the last years.

That and Le Pen has massively toned down the anti-European and anti-immigrant rhetoric.

While her father was openly anti-semite, anti-immigrant and anti-semite she speaks about "the values of laicism" and to "rethink the euro"

It's been a remarkable exercise of rebranding.

It has, sadly for Le Pen her niece and probable succesor seems to take after grandfather So I wonder how far Le Pen manages to get before her party gaks the bed again.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
.

Le Pen getting 34% is in part a side effect of second round French presidential elections, but as Germany doesn't have that system and multiple parties, I have a hard time seeing them reach above the 10-20% bracket. Taking into account that both the AfD and Le Pen got their election campaigns handed to them on a silver platter due to events in the last years.

That and Le Pen has massively toned down the anti-European and anti-immigrant rhetoric.

While her father was openly anti-semite, anti-immigrant and anti-semite she speaks about "the values of laicism" and to "rethink the euro"

It's been a remarkable exercise of rebranding.

It has, sadly for Le Pen her niece and probable succesor seems to take after grandfather So I wonder how far Le Pen manages to get before her party gaks the bed again.

It's happened also in Italy, where both 5-star movement in the left and the Lega Nord in the right have taken great pains to dillute their message to make it more palatable for the mainstream.

Or in Greece, where I'm now, formerly anti-everything Syriza now sits more or less comfortably just at the edge of the mainstream. Golden Dawn still need to try harder.

Uhm no they didn't. The population of Germany in 39 was about 70 million, add to that the 7 million of Austria and you get 77 million of a much less diverse 'ethnic' background back then. Currently Germany has about 80 million, but only 80% is 'ethnic' German. So in reality Nazi Germany had about 10 million more Germans to work with.

I said people, though . And the country was much bigger. That said, it's hard to argue that a population of 228 people per square kilometer has any problems filling anything. If anything, that's way too many to keep people sane (not completely pulling that out of thin air, recent studies here have shown that kids who grow up in cities develop psychoses and schizophrenia 3 times as often als country kids).

XuQishi wrote:

Uhm no they didn't. The population of Germany in 39 was about 70 million, add to that the 7 million of Austria and you get 77 million of a much less diverse 'ethnic' background back then. Currently Germany has about 80 million, but only 80% is 'ethnic' German. So in reality Nazi Germany had about 10 million more Germans to work with.

I said people, though . And the country was much bigger. That said, it's hard to argue that a population of 228 people per square kilometer has any problems filling anything. If anything, that's way too many to keep people sane (not completely pulling that out of thin air, recent studies here have shown that kids who grow up in cities develop psychoses and schizophrenia 3 times as often als country kids).

Well if we count just people, you're still wrong Because in 39 Nazi Germany had a population of about 88 million with Austria plus the Czech part. They only lost those because the Nazis chose to go to war. So in Germans the Nazis had 10 million more. In general about 6-7 million more.

But the side effect of having a declining population in a welfare state is pressure on budgets. So if you don't keep the population stable something is going to give in the system.

 sebster wrote:
I don't follow German politics that closely, but as a general observation hard line right wing parties don't often claim an all powerful share of the vote by themselves. In fact 15 to 20% seems to be a pretty firm ceiling in most cases. Le Pen getting to 34% in the last French election was quite of the ordinary, and it was still a 30 point slaughter. Even after calling a snap election after the Reichstag fire and running a week long terror campaign to scare away the wrong kind of voters, Hitler only just cracked 40% and needed coalition support to form government (the previous election that gave him power he won 33%).

This doesn't mean hard line right wing parties can't get power. But typically it happens when more moderate groups form alliances with the hard liners.

That isn't happening in Germany, is it? Any hint that it might?

It might. The problem is not that more moderate groups form alliances with the hard liners; it's that the more moderate groups form alliances against the hard liners. That is how they have already broken the ceiling by finding support outside their core voter base: by being the the only ones on their side of the argument.

Certainly, unless the productivity is high enough to compensate (which it is), something that the average German hasn't felt much of. In terms of real money, not nominal money, wages have been dropping since the 90s*, I think this is slowly turning around now, though, as the companies can't get enough good people and start paying better.

*taxation plays a part in this. Currently 60% more people than in 2012 are paying the maximum tax rate, since the brackets are from the 1960s and are never adjusted by inflation. It's starting to hit the guys at the automotive assembly lines now since their wages are now nominally at a level that captains of the industry were in 1960. (To illustrate: It used to be that you had to make 18 times the average income to hit that threshold, it's now 1.3 times). Basically a guy who had to pay that in 1960 could buy 25 VW Beetles with that money or 2.5 average single-family homes. Now it's one Golf GTD or 1/8 of an average house.

XuQishi wrote:
Certainly, unless the productivity is high enough to compensate (which it is), something that the average German hasn't felt much of. In terms of real money, not nominal money, wages have been dropping since the 90s*, I think this is slowly turning around now, though, as the companies can't get enough good people and start paying better.

*taxation plays a part in this. Currently 60% more people than in 2012 are paying the maximum tax rate, since the brackets are from the 1960s and are never adjusted by inflation. It's starting to hit the guys at the automotive assembly lines now since their wages are now nominally at a level that captains of the industry were in 1960. (To illustrate: It used to be that you had to make 18 times the average income to hit that threshold, it's now 1.3 times). Basically a guy who had to pay that in 1960 could buy 25 VW Beetles with that money or 2.5 average single-family homes. Now it's one Golf GTD or 1/8 of an average house.

To a point productivity plays a part. But in the coming years both Germany and the NL will hit the babyboomer retriment wave hump. Once those people stop working you can't tax them the same amount while those people will start drawing more heavily from certain parts of the welfare state.

Wage plays a part in this, wages could go up, but if the wages for 1.4 people don't match the older previous wages for 2 people, you're not going to be able to get the same amount of tax on them. In that case, productivity comes into the picture because companies might start having to pay more if their productivity level stays the same but wage costs relatively decline because less people are employed for the productivity. The money is going to have to come from somewhere, someone is going to have the cough up for the budget shortfalls, at least untill the boomer generation reaches the age they start dying off.

There'd a thing missing here.

Yes there is a rise of far right in Germany, and right in general.

You cannot have the rise of a Nazi without the rise of Hitler, Himler, and Goerbals, speer. Etc.

Theres no charasmatic leader, no one able to easily fill a rally ground of hundreds of thousands, to drive thr vision with Thete oratory. There's no war hero, no national hero, no propaganda master whom able to sell the message with great skill or master architect turn ING the very ideas and power into form and function.

Look at Germany now, and world leaders. Find someone who can deliver a speech like back then? You won,t. No German, No brit can deliver like that.

Theres no great Churchill, or Hitler who could deliver a speech with power to drive people to those extremes and those wartime fevers.

Who gonna do it?

Merkel?
Shutz?
May, Cameron or so?

Don, t think so...

You cannot have the rise of a Nazi without the rise of Hitler, Himler, and Goerbals, speer. Etc.

Theres no charasmatic leader, no one able to easily fill a rally ground of hundreds of thousands, to drive thr vision with Thete oratory. There's no war hero, no national hero, no propaganda master whom able to sell the message with great skill or master architect turn ING the very ideas and power into form and function.

I was just going to post the same thing here. The AfD has no single one, charismatic leader that would be able to pull anything off at a bigger stage. And the pathetic thing is, it's full of people who are obviously trying to hold a speech like Hitler did - and it's so very obvious, and so very sad. Björn Höcke (the one guy who said the Holocaust memorial is a shame amongst other ridiculous things) is front and foremost amongst those who seem to think they can pull off being the next Hitler - and he's been sidelined so hard even by his own party that you rarely ever hear from him these days.

The current AfD top politicians have some more charisma than the rest of the bunch, but not at the level where a rousing oratory will convince half the country to suddendly like the AfD.

 Witzkatz wrote:

You cannot have the rise of a Nazi without the rise of Hitler, Himler, and Goerbals, speer. Etc.

Theres no charasmatic leader, no one able to easily fill a rally ground of hundreds of thousands, to drive thr vision with Thete oratory. There's no war hero, no national hero, no propaganda master whom able to sell the message with great skill or master architect turn ING the very ideas and power into form and function.

I was just going to post the same thing here. The AfD has no single one, charismatic leader that would be able to pull anything off at a bigger stage. And the pathetic thing is, it's full of people who are obviously trying to hold a speech like Hitler did - and it's so very obvious, and so very sad. Björn Höcke (the one guy who said the Holocaust memorial is a shame amongst other ridiculous things) is front and foremost amongst those who seem to think they can pull off being the next Hitler - and he's been sidelined so hard even by his own party that you rarely ever hear from him these days.

The current AfD top politicians have some more charisma than the rest of the bunch, but not at the level where a rousing oratory will convince half the country to suddendly like the AfD.

You don't need a charismatic leader to send a nation on the road to hell.

If you know your 1920s German history, then you'll know that Conservative elements, especially in the army, were out to destroy the Weimar Republic from day 1, long before Hitler became a major player in German politics.

As I've said before, AfD don't need to win - just by panicking the ruling class, and changing the narrative, already gives them a 'victory' of sorts.

UKIP, another minority party in the UK, were able to panic the much larger Conservative party into holding an EU referendum. The rest is history.

If AfD get the mainstream parties talking tough on immigration, then AfD have achieved their goals...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


UKIP, another minority party in the UK, were able to panic the much larger Conservative party into holding an EU referendum. The rest is history.

It then collapsed in on itself and lost most of it's vote share, becoming more of a joke than it started.

These populist / single party groups tend to disintegrate as soon as they have to do anything except shout soundbites from the sidelines.

Oh, they are changing the topics of the mainstream parties. Many columnists have correctly pointed out that the AfD hogged the topic of immigration for themselves, and they gained so many votes because no other party was going to touch it. Now that they are far above 10%, you hear very different notes from CDU mostly about immigration.

Nevertheless, it could also be said that the AfD was kind of a logical conclusion of an overall shift to the left in German politics - people complained that the traditionally opposed conservative CDU and social-democratic SPD were suddendly interchangeable on so many positions that they ran out of viable options to really have a decision on as a voter.

As an example: The CDU had put forward a notion about defining German as the definite national language of Germany back in the 90s. For some reason or the other, it didn't go through, without much hubbub as far as I remember.

Recently, the AfD wanted to define German as the national language. Suddendly CDU (amongst all other parties) are laughing at the AfD for trying to "enshrine their own petty German-ness into law" and viewing this as a folly to even suggest.

Just to show one quick example of how the CDU shifted on the left-right scale in the last years, mostly under Merkel, and mostly since she started her famous "We can do it!" approach to the refugee crisis.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:

You cannot have the rise of a Nazi without the rise of Hitler, Himler, and Goerbals, speer. Etc.

Theres no charasmatic leader, no one able to easily fill a rally ground of hundreds of thousands, to drive thr vision with Thete oratory. There's no war hero, no national hero, no propaganda master whom able to sell the message with great skill or master architect turn ING the very ideas and power into form and function.

I was just going to post the same thing here. The AfD has no single one, charismatic leader that would be able to pull anything off at a bigger stage. And the pathetic thing is, it's full of people who are obviously trying to hold a speech like Hitler did - and it's so very obvious, and so very sad. Björn Höcke (the one guy who said the Holocaust memorial is a shame amongst other ridiculous things) is front and foremost amongst those who seem to think they can pull off being the next Hitler - and he's been sidelined so hard even by his own party that you rarely ever hear from him these days.

The current AfD top politicians have some more charisma than the rest of the bunch, but not at the level where a rousing oratory will convince half the country to suddendly like the AfD.

You don't need a charismatic leader to send a nation on the road to hell.

If you know your 1920s German history, then you'll know that Conservative elements, especially in the army, were out to destroy the Weimar Republic from day 1, long before Hitler became a major player in German politics.

As I've said before, AfD don't need to win - just by panicking the ruling class, and changing the narrative, already gives them a 'victory' of sorts.

UKIP, another minority party in the UK, were able to panic the much larger Conservative party into holding an EU referendum. The rest is history.

If AfD get the mainstream parties talking tough on immigration, then AfD have achieved their goals...

Really? You don't need a leader? But then you bring up 1920? You don't need a leader, but an incredibly devestating world war, the collapse of the German political system and the spectre of communism? If anything 1920 represents an even more extreme scenario Germany in no way faces or will face in the foreseeable future.

UKIP already had influence because its ideas found support in the media and amongst elements of the conservative party. The conservatives didn't panic, they tried a cynical ploy. Meanwhile the AfD has none of the above, no coherent viewpoints that can count on anywhere near the support the single issue party of UKIP can.

Define talking tough, as the shift was already slowly coming about.

Really? You don't need a leader? But then you bring up 1920? You don't need a leader, but an incredibly devestating world war, the collapse of the German political system and the spectre of communism? If anything 1920 represents an even more extreme scenario Germany in no way faces or will face in the foreseeable future.

People forget that the Nazis only polled about 8% in the 1928 elections. The situation had stabilised somewhat by then, with Weimar scoring some success with the treaty of Locarno.

Had it not been for the great crash of 1929, Weimar might have weathered the storm, and the rest could have been history.

As for AfD, when hard-core, right-wing fringe parties start becoming 'normalised' then it is time to start worrying, because then people think it's acceptable to vote for them...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Really? You don't need a leader? But then you bring up 1920? You don't need a leader, but an incredibly devestating world war, the collapse of the German political system and the spectre of communism? If anything 1920 represents an even more extreme scenario Germany in no way faces or will face in the foreseeable future.

People forget that the Nazis only polled about 8% in the 1928 elections. The situation had stabilised somewhat by then, with Weimar scoring some success with the treaty of Locarno.

Had it not been for the great crash of 1929, Weimar might have weathered the storm, and the rest could have been history.

As for AfD, when hard-core, right-wing fringe parties start becoming 'normalised' then it is time to start worrying, because then people think it's acceptable to vote for them...

Yes they only polled 8%, what people also tend to forget that Hitler started massively downplaying the extreme parts of the Nazi party, grew to 18% and then about 33% They still didn't get into a significant position of power until the elites (such as von Papen) basically handed Hitler control because they were terrified of communism and the socialist parties. Yet they even needed the Reichstag fire to really break out 1933 wasn't just a consequence of the great depression, it was a large combination of factors. Alternative parties were demolished in the 20's due to a combination of factors and the Nazis also engaged in pretty widespread political repression of opponents before they even got into power.

The AfD has nowhere near the elite support and political instability to profit off, let alone being able to depend on people's ignorance like the Nazis could.

12.8% of the vote, that means the AfD is 'normalised' already, people did find it acceptable. Yet there is no indication that the AfD will get nearly big enough.

To give the AfD SOME credit, they are not as loony as the NPD, the far-right party that regularly is discussed to be forbidden because of their extreme views. I'm not even sure the AfD's program is that much worse than most of the conservative parties of Eastern Europe, Poland and so on. But yes, they still get treated as the devil you absolutely don't work with by all other parties, and as long as that doesn't change, they will be confined to opposition politics.

On a separate note, I'd pay good money to see Merkel's reaction if she ever has to meet Berlusconi again, and recent events in Italy might make that possible

 Witzkatz wrote:
To give the AfD SOME credit, they are not as loony as the NPD, the far-right party that regularly is discussed to be forbidden because of their extreme views. I'm not even sure the AfD's program is that much worse than most of the conservative parties of Eastern Europe, Poland and so on. But yes, they still get treated as the devil you absolutely don't work with by all other parties, and as long as that doesn't change, they will be confined to opposition politics.

True, this hits the nail on the head, but to be fair, some AfD politicians might as well be closet NPDers. Allowing those to be in the party is the problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
On a separate note, I'd pay good money to see Merkel's reaction if she ever has to meet Berlusconi again, and recent events in Italy might make that possible

He's banned from holding office untill 2019. So even if his party forms a government its unlikely he will be in a position important enough to meet Merkel in an official capacity.

Yeah, if the AfD would clean up their act and take a strong and official stand against the closet NPD politicians in their own party, they might actually manage to slowly gain more acceptance as a legitimate opposition party. As long as guys like Höcke can run around and do shouting speeches with a trembling fist and pulsating veins on his temple, they just look...bad.

 Witzkatz wrote:
Yeah, if the AfD would clean up their act and take a strong and official stand against the closet NPD politicians in their own party, they might actually manage to slowly gain more acceptance as a legitimate opposition party. As long as guys like Höcke can run around and do shouting speeches with a trembling fist and pulsating veins on his temple, they just look...bad.

Indeed, but that is never going to happen as long as Gauland is the co-leader.

Well, Gauland is an old political warhorse, he is ex-CDU after all.

I'm not even sure the AfD's program is that much worse than most of the conservative parties of Eastern Europe, Poland and so on.

It's probably not, it reads a lot like a CDU/CSU program from the 90s.

Weimar might have weathered the storm, and the rest could have been history.

I don't think that Weimar II would technically be possible, they needed a dumb president with a lot of power that the current Bundespräsident simply doesn't have. There's a reason why the BP is often called Grüßaugust (which means something like empty shirt or director of all things breakfast).

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


As for AfD, when hard-core, right-wing fringe parties start becoming 'normalised' then it is time to start worrying, because then people think it's acceptable to vote for them...

I'd rather have fringe parties consciously work their way to the centre than fringe wings of a party taking over a main party: namely Trump.

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


UKIP, another minority party in the UK, were able to panic the much larger Conservative party into holding an EU referendum. The rest is history.

It then collapsed in on itself and lost most of it's vote share, becoming more of a joke than it started.

These populist / single party groups tend to disintegrate as soon as they have to do anything except shout soundbites from the sidelines.

UKIP got what they wanted. They were a party that formed to get the UK out of the EU, and they got the UK out of the EU. We used to have a word for people like that: dictator.

To portray that as a defeat of UKIP is ridiculous.

The funny thing here is I just emailed Angela Merkel abd said as an american I believe Germany should go nuclear and develop a nuclear arsenal large enough to protect itself from. Russia , China, abd possibly america.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
No hint for Germany so far. The AfD doesn't really tend to play nice with the other parties or vice versa. The fact that the AfD doesn't even want to keep a pretense of moderate approaches means that they just drive away any possible coalition. Plus it might be electoral suicide for other parties to link up with the AfD, because the voters who supported the AfD already moved over, while the majority of Germans seems to strongly dislike the AfD for obvious reasons.

Le Pen getting 34% is in part a side effect of second round French presidential elections, but as Germany doesn't have that system and multiple parties, I have a hard time seeing them reach above the 10-20% bracket. Taking into account that both the AfD and Le Pen got their election campaigns handed to them on a silver platter due to events in the last years.

Yeah, I thought about making a note that the numbers weren't directly comparable, because one was a two horse race, and the other had many parties. But my post was already going in a few directions, and I figured anyone who cared about the distinction already knew

It seems like AfD are stuck like most hard line parties are. Their hard line gives them a solid base of disaffected, angry people, but it won't ever be enough to be single party majority, and because they're politically toxic to the rest of politics they won't be part of any coalition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:
That and Le Pen has massively toned down the anti-European and anti-immigrant rhetoric.

While her father was openly anti-semite, anti-immigrant and anti-semite she speaks about "the values of laicism" and to "rethink the euro"

It's been a remarkable exercise of rebranding.

But it is just rebranding, there's no real change in substance. So using euphemisms to hide the real motivation of the policy can help win over people who have some pretty strong racial angst but who don't like to think of themselves as racist, but even when added to the outright racists it is still well short of a majority.

The only way she or any hard right candidate gets to a majority is if voters who know full well how racist she is decide they'll ignore it to serve some other political goal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlexHolker wrote:
It might. The problem is not that more moderate groups form alliances with the hard liners; it's that the more moderate groups form alliances against the hard liners. That is how they have already broken the ceiling by finding support outside their core voter base: by being the the only ones on their side of the argument.

I see what you are getting at and think there is a good point there, but I disagree with your conclusion. Thing is, if the only groups you quarantine are the clear racists, then then space you've left there is only for racists, and it is a space that will only draw in racists, who won't ever exist in big enough numbers. The problem comes because there's a lot of parties and policies which can have racist elements but aren't purely racist. Immigration reform, for instance, is often extremely racially charged, but there's a whole lot of non-racist reasons to want reform to the system.

If we were to quarantine the whole of the immigration discussion in to the racist corner, then I agree that the racist parties may end up the only ones on that side of the argument. I believe this was what drove up UKIP's vote, people weren't on board with a lot of UKIP's really problematic stuff, but they were searching for a way to register their protest against the EU.

So there is a fair bit of complexity in exactly where the line is drawn, both on issues and on parties. I agree there. But the answer to this isn't to open the door to racists or entertain plainly racist policies as part of the national discussion. History shows these guys don't make constructive allies, they either take control or they smash up as much as they can in a hissyfit when they aren't given more power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:
There'd a thing missing here.

Yes there is a rise of far right in Germany, and right in general.

You cannot have the rise of a Nazi without the rise of Hitler, Himler, and Goerbals, speer. Etc.

Theres no charasmatic leader, no one able to easily fill a rally ground of hundreds of thousands, to drive thr vision with Thete oratory. There's no war hero, no national hero, no propaganda master whom able to sell the message with great skill or master architect turn ING the very ideas and power into form and function.

Hitler's personal appeal has been largely overstated. Hitler's most famous piece of propaganda, Triumph of the Will, the film that used visionary techniques to show Hitler's speeches in their best and most powerful form didn't even crack the top 10 films. It came in miles behind a bunch of American movies, funnily enough. If Hitler was a master orator who could draw a whole nation to his crazy beliefs, you'd think people might have paid money to see him talk.

This is why, like I said earlier, in the last fair election the Nazis won a little over 30% of the vote.

The difference is that 30% of the vote is worthless when the other 70% refuse to make deals and give you power. But when, as with Hitler, other groups make deals to form 51% of the vote, you open the door and very bad things happen.

So there is a fair bit of complexity in exactly where the line is drawn, both on issues and on parties. I agree there. But the answer to this isn't to open the door to racists or entertain plainly racist policies as part of the national discussion. History shows these guys don't make constructive allies, they either take control or they smash up as much as they can in a hissyfit when they aren't given more power.

The AfD has a lot of racist people, even close to the top, but certainly down at its voter base. However, I was just reading through parts of their party program (it's 96 pages so I'm not going to suffer through the whole thing right now, if anybody non-German is interested on their stance on a specific topic I could gladly look it up and translate, though) and I was again surprised how many points simply sound like the usual shtick from the US republicans (not trying to drag them into this topic, just giving a one-time comparison) or conservative parties of other countries. They are more or less pro-life, which is a rarity in the German political landscape, but certainly not worldwide. They support "traditional family values", which has become such a meme in these last few years, in threads which must not be named. They want to try and support a higher birth rate, just like other countries like for example Denmark is doing, with lots of financial and material aids for young couples wanting to have kids. - The racist or bigoted part comes in when they mention in their party program how muslim immigrants turn out to be less well educated than native Germans while having more kids, which is why they want more native German kids. So yeah, there's glimpses of what some party members think deep down, but - without intending to vote for them - I really wonder if they deserve that "Nazi party" spectre hanging over them, when they are mostly supporting policies so very common in conservative parties of other countries.


@Techpriestsupport regarding your post in your locked thread - "Look who's back" is a comedy...? Nothing there is meant to be serious, it's a bizarre novel about Hitler coming out of some hidden bunker half a century later and OF COURSE not being happy with the Germany he sees today, because he's fething Hitler, not because Germany is actually in such a bleak state. It's a fun read!

I think the Nazi party spectre is more of a consequence of what its politicians have said in public than what is in the party program. The members they have and the views they hold say a lot more about a party than a program that can be changed or ignored at will.

As for "Look who's back", Germans have no problem identifying certain views/people as Nazis/Neonazis. I think the book was pretty mediocre at best, with a subject intended to gain pr because "its Hitler you guyz!"

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
No. Her opponents are socialists.

Quite the difference there, ta.

Nice to see someone else understands that.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Witzkatz wrote:

So there is a fair bit of complexity in exactly where the line is drawn, both on issues and on parties. I agree there. But the answer to this isn't to open the door to racists or entertain plainly racist policies as part of the national discussion. History shows these guys don't make constructive allies, they either take control or they smash up as much as they can in a hissyfit when they aren't given more power.

The AfD has a lot of racist people, even close to the top, but certainly down at its voter base. However, I was just reading through parts of their party program (it's 96 pages so I'm not going to suffer through the whole thing right now, if anybody non-German is interested on their stance on a specific topic I could gladly look it up and translate, though) and I was again surprised how many points simply sound like the usual shtick from the US republicans (not trying to drag them into this topic, just giving a one-time comparison) or conservative parties of other countries. They are more or less pro-life, which is a rarity in the German political landscape, but certainly not worldwide. They support "traditional family values", which has become such a meme in these last few years, in threads which must not be named. They want to try and support a higher birth rate, just like other countries like for example Denmark is doing, with lots of financial and material aids for young couples wanting to have kids. - The racist or bigoted part comes in when they mention in their party program how muslim immigrants turn out to be less well educated than native Germans while having more kids, which is why they want more native German kids. So yeah, there's glimpses of what some party members think deep down, but - without intending to vote for them - I really wonder if they deserve that "Nazi party" spectre hanging over them, when they are mostly supporting policies so very common in conservative parties of other countries.


@Techpriestsupport regarding your post in your locked thread - "Look who's back" is a comedy...? Nothing there is meant to be serious, it's a bizarre novel about Hitler coming out of some hidden bunker half a century later and OF COURSE not being happy with the Germany he sees today, because he's fething Hitler, not because Germany is actually in such a bleak state. It's a fun read!

Thanks for replying. As a non German I wasn't sure I 'got' it. I was seeing the possibilities as Hitler comes back abd because times are bad he becomes politically popular again, or the idea that Germans are so determined to forget the past they can't even see and recognize hitler when he's literally right in front of them.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think the Nazi party spectre is more of a consequence of what its politicians have said in public than what is in the party program. The members they have and the views they hold say a lot more about a party than a program that can be changed or ignored at will.

As for "Look who's back", Germans have no problem identifying certain views/people as Nazis/Neonazis. I think the book was pretty mediocre at best, with a subject intended to gain pr because "its Hitler you guyz!"

Yeah, they do give the impression of trying to just write semi-acceptable conservative statements into their party program, while their politicians on stage or at rallies show a slightly more sinister twist on all of this, which is why I'm still rather wary of the AfD and don't plan on voting for them any time soon.

Nevertheless, who else to vote for if you are unhappy with quite a few things the last and current CDU/SPD government did? Greens and Lefts have their own problems, and the FDP really still hasn't shed its imagine as Germany's party for rich people...

Oh, and I actually didn't read Look who's back completely, just the first parts I think. I was going to maybe read it completely in a bit, but if you're saying it's not worth it I might just leave it be.

 Witzkatz wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think the Nazi party spectre is more of a consequence of what its politicians have said in public than what is in the party program. The members they have and the views they hold say a lot more about a party than a program that can be changed or ignored at will.

As for "Look who's back", Germans have no problem identifying certain views/people as Nazis/Neonazis. I think the book was pretty mediocre at best, with a subject intended to gain pr because "its Hitler you guyz!"

Yeah, they do give the impression of trying to just write semi-acceptable conservative statements into their party program, while their politicians on stage or at rallies show a slightly more sinister twist on all of this, which is why I'm still rather wary of the AfD and don't plan on voting for them any time soon.

Nevertheless, who else to vote for if you are unhappy with quite a few things the last and current CDU/SPD government did? Greens and Lefts have their own problems, and the FDP really still hasn't shed its imagine as Germany's party for rich people...

Oh, and I actually didn't read Look who's back completely, just the first parts I think. I was going to maybe read it completely in a bit, but if you're saying it's not worth it I might just leave it be.

Quite true, the AfD presents the only right wing choice for the 'people' so to speak if you're tired of the CDU. The FDP while having good policies is more geared towards business than the people. Die Linke and Die Grünen are left, so not a choice for voters on the right. I get why people vote for the AfD as the 'only' option in that case, but its still unnerving to see people choosing to ignore the wider problem with the party because they get the policies they like from the AfD.

As for the book, maybe its a matter of taste. I felt it just started to meander aimlessly, as if the author knew what he wanted the setting/beginning to be, but not having thought about how to end it.

Just an example for the readers not near Germany or the Netherlands - one of the slightly higher-up AfD politicians apparently just resigned from his position over a speech he gave during Ash Wednesday, which is traditionally a big thing in (middle to southern) German carnival culture. He called Turks "caraway merchants" and "camel drivers", and naturally caught a lot of flak from most other parties and the media. This is quite par for the course for the public image of many AfD politicians and something that keeps many voters from actually considering them a valid choice, I think. And the guy that Disciple of Fate mentioned - the AfD vice boss, Gauland - was interviewed in the context of these remarks and basically said not much more than "Eh, it was Ash Wednesday, what do you expect" and as a literal quote "It's not racism when I say: The Turks don't belong to Germany."

So I think their political personnel overall is not that different from many other more-or-less fringey right-wing parties in other countries. Big proponents of "I'm not a racist, but..." statements in public, shock-and-awe political statements and a lot of bluster, but I honestly question whether they would actually be able to govern a country, being so used to being the "radical" opposition to the "mainstream parties" and the "liar press" as they call it here.



...I think the party had a somewhat charismatic and not completely loony face with Frauke Petry, one of their long-time head figurines. However, she left the party days after the last elections on her own volition, vowing to fround a new party - "Die Blauen", the blues. Since then, I haven't heard a pip from her, so I think her political career is almost over, and certainly removed from the AfD.

I have watched this movie, and the funniest part is when the re-enact a famous scene frome The Fall.

As for the Afd, why do you all speak about nazis ? What have they said or did that they deserve such a bad name ?

 godardc wrote:
I have watched this movie, and the funniest part is when the re-enact a famous scene frome The Fall.

As for the Afd, why do you all speak about nazis ? What have they said or did that they deserve such a bad name ?

Unfortunately, the Right=Nazi or even Conservative=Nazi equation gets thrown around in Germany just as easily as in some other countries, maybe more - so I think it's only partially deserved. The partial bit comes from politicians like Björn Höcke - his speeches are on youtube to some extent, sometimes with translations.

A guy that wants Germany to be proud of its Wehrmacht back during World War 2, who wants to remove Holocaust memorials and overall wants a "180 degree turn on the way we view our history". If somebody like that is higher up in a party and has apparently the green light from party leaders to continue as he does, the party deserves at least some flak for that.


(And by the way, waving the German flag during political rallies is god damn absolutely uncommon in Germany. I know the US loves it, I know other countries do it, but just understand, from a German-calibrated viewpoint it's just...a clear message, let's put it that way.)

Small correction, Gauland made the Wehrmacht comment, not Höcke.

So yeah, the Wehrmach comments and the Holocaust memorials one amongst others cause them to have such a bad name, fully deserved in my opinion.

 godardc wrote:
As for the Afd, why do you all speak about nazis ? What have they said or did that they deserve such a bad name ?

They also like to repackage quite a few Nazi talking points in today's acceptable language. Then when they get their attention and are called out on it they track back and whine that people misunderstood them. Besides everybody else is way too oversensitive and outraged all the time. It all the fault of too much political correctness anyways. To me It doesn't matter too much if their official pamphlets don't mention that that when they have repeatedly shown a pattern of being at least Neo-Nazi adjacent.

 Witzkatz wrote:
The AfD has a lot of racist people, even close to the top, but certainly down at its voter base. However, I was just reading through parts of their party program (it's 96 pages so I'm not going to suffer through the whole thing right now, if anybody non-German is interested on their stance on a specific topic I could gladly look it up and translate, though) and I was again surprised how many points simply sound like the usual shtick from the US republicans (not trying to drag them into this topic, just giving a one-time comparison) or conservative parties of other countries. They are more or less pro-life, which is a rarity in the German political landscape, but certainly not worldwide. They support "traditional family values", which has become such a meme in these last few years, in threads which must not be named. They want to try and support a higher birth rate, just like other countries like for example Denmark is doing, with lots of financial and material aids for young couples wanting to have kids. - The racist or bigoted part comes in when they mention in their party program how muslim immigrants turn out to be less well educated than native Germans while having more kids, which is why they want more native German kids. So yeah, there's glimpses of what some party members think deep down, but - without intending to vote for them - I really wonder if they deserve that "Nazi party" spectre hanging over them, when they are mostly supporting policies so very common in conservative parties of other countries.

That's the complexity. These parties often have a lot of reasonable policies, and often the policies are vague enough that you don't know exactly what they would do if they got some power, they tend to speak out of both sides of their mouths. Which to be fair is something all political parties do.

The result is a non-racist can see stuff like immigration reform and find that appealing. If other parties take the easy positioning of condemning any talk on immigration as racist, then as AlexHolker wrote you risk pushing a lot of non-racists in to the racist party just because they're the only ones talking about the issue they're concerned about. But at the same time we can't take the complexity and lack of overt racism on every issue as an excuse to just ignore the racism, it is what it is and treating parties like AfD as normal opens the door to some really awful stuff, potentially.

@Techpriestsupport regarding your post in your locked thread - "Look who's back" is a comedy...? Nothing there is meant to be serious, it's a bizarre novel about Hitler coming out of some hidden bunker half a century later and OF COURSE not being happy with the Germany he sees today, because he's fething Hitler, not because Germany is actually in such a bleak state. It's a fun read!

I've seen the movie, I don't know if its different to the book but it seemed to have a bit more going on that just poking fun at Hitler being angry at Germany today. A lot of people in the movie agreed with a lot of complaints Hitler made (without realizing he was actually Hitler and not just an impersonator). I took that to mean there are real dissatisfactions in society today that could be played on by a figure like Hitler, as long people didn't know where that figure would end up taking them. But I wasn't 100% sure of that, I don't know if something got lost in translation or if the film just didn't quite nail the point but the overall message did seem a little messy. Still pretty fun though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Witzkatz wrote:
And the guy that Disciple of Fate mentioned - the AfD vice boss, Gauland - was interviewed in the context of these remarks and basically said not much more than "Eh, it was Ash Wednesday, what do you expect" and as a literal quote "It's not racism when I say: The Turks don't belong to Germany."

It's a weird part of the modern world that it is almost universally agreed that racism is very bad, but no-one actually agrees on what racism is. So we still get racism, but its followed by people saying the racist thing wasn't actually racist and therefore is okay.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


As for "Look who's back", Germans have no problem identifying certain views/people as Nazis/Neonazis. I think the book was pretty mediocre at best, with a subject intended to gain pr because "its Hitler you guyz!"

Gah. I sent this in PM to someone else a few days ago, but now I feel compelled to post it here as well.

Look Who's Back is really quite ingenious as a story, but the book is easier to follow than the movie for obvious reasons.

That's not really the point of the movie. Much in the same vein of It Can't Happen Here the Look Who's Back is a satirical comedy/very harsh social commentary. The creator himself is something of a troll as the novel is presented as a satire mocking Hitler and his ideas, when in reality its mocking the audience (i.e the reader) from start to finish. Even' the books initial price-tag (19.33) is openly mocking the audience in a really round about way.

To be clear this book is kind insulting from the get go in how it chooses to portray Hitler as a figure of mockery rather than as a monster but that in itself is kind of the author's point. Look Who's Back is basically a smart version of Idiocracy constantly pointing out that people are surrounded by human beings with ideas as laughable as Hitler's but we're all so naive that we're incapable of realizing how ridiculous they are, that there are people who take such things seriously, and that even in 1933 Hitler didn't seem that evil until suddenly he's throwing people in ovens.

Really I don't think this is a message that solely applies to Germany either. The point of the novel, and it carries into the movie, isn't that Germany is so bad Hitler himself could come back and rise to power again but rather that people are so naive that figures like Hitler become powerful because we don't take them seriously. Further the book is also a sharp criticism of modern TV and mass media, and the way they encourage and promote outrageous characters and personas into larger than life figures, but I think at it's core the story isn't a warning about Hitler coming back, but rather a dark comedy about how he never really left. This kind of figure has been and always will be with us, and its when we don't take them seriously, treat them like a joke, or be oblivious to their own words that they become dangerous.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
I took that to mean there are real dissatisfactions in society today that could be played on by a figure like Hitler, as long people didn't know where that figure would end up taking them. But I wasn't 100% sure of that, I don't know if something got lost in translation or if the film just didn't quite nail the point but the overall message did seem a little messy. Still pretty fun though.

Your basically right. The movie botched the later portions of the story, where the author made a full transition from "look how goofy it is watching Hitler try to come to terms with modern Germany what a riot" to "omg why the feth are we laughing Hitler is trying to come to terms with modern Germany why aren't we rioting?!" The point of the story has nothing to actually do with Hitler himself or Germany imo. It's all about the modern world and and the darkly funny way we looking back at 1933 and asking "how the feth did you people let this happen" while being so naive that we follow similar demagogues without ever realizing it in droves whether they be screaming TV personalities, "I'm here to offend people you hate" comedians, or politicians who tell us what we want to hear but not what we need to know.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


As for "Look who's back", Germans have no problem identifying certain views/people as Nazis/Neonazis. I think the book was pretty mediocre at best, with a subject intended to gain pr because "its Hitler you guyz!"

Gah. I sent this in PM to someone else a few days ago, but now I feel compelled to post it here as well.

Look Who's Back is really quite ingenious as a story, but the book is easier to follow than the movie for obvious reasons.

That's not really the point of the movie. Much in the same vein of It Can't Happen Here the Look Who's Back is a satirical comedy/very harsh social commentary. The creator himself is something of a troll as the novel is presented as a satire mocking Hitler and his ideas, when in reality its mocking the audience (i.e the reader) from start to finish. Even' the books initial price-tag (19.33) is openly mocking the audience in a really round about way.

To be clear this book is kind insulting from the get go in how it chooses to portray Hitler as a figure of mockery rather than as a monster but that in itself is kind of the author's point. Look Who's Back is basically a smart version of Idiocracy constantly pointing out that people are surrounded by human beings with ideas as laughable as Hitler's but we're all so naive that we're incapable of realizing how ridiculous they are, that there are people who take such things seriously, and that even in 1933 Hitler didn't seem that evil until suddenly he's throwing people in ovens.

Really I don't think this is a message that solely applies to Germany either. The point of the novel, and it carries into the movie, isn't that Germany is so bad Hitler himself could come back and rise to power again but rather that people are so naive that figures like Hitler become powerful because we don't take them seriously. Further the book is also a sharp criticism of modern TV and mass media, and the way they encourage and promote outrageous characters and personas into larger than life figures, but I think at it's core the story isn't a warning about Hitler coming back, but rather a dark comedy about how he never really left. This kind of figure has been and always will be with us, and its when we don't take them seriously, treat them like a joke, or be oblivious to their own words that they become dangerous.

My first comment on the book was a bit short, but like I said, I feel like the author had a very good idea behind the setting/story which your comment explains well. Where the book comes up short for me is after setting that up it just keeps going for too long in my opinion, starting to meander. Maybe its just me, but having done quite some research into the period for my studies, so Hitler comes across as not really 'historical Hitler' in parts, which is why the scene almost at the end comes across as doubly ironic to me. The book presents it as ironic perhaps not seeing the irony behind the irony. The inconsistencies are what take me out of the book, the setting is good, but some extra work would have gone a long way for me. That's where my idea comes from that 'Hitler' is just used for PR purposes, it just doesn't click for me as a reference, and when it falls short, it comes across as cynical. Side note, the actor they used in the movie was seemingly made to look even more disturbing, its like a twilight zone version.

One thing I see is people yelling ''racism! '' because people are opposed to radical Islam. Islam is not a race it's an ideology. People can be against an ideology without being racist.

Some fools will say that if it's an ideology help mainly by members of a certain race then opposing it is automatically racist. This is an idiotic mentality but when you point out that by that rational people opposing nazism. Have to be anti European racists they just call you a racist.

So when I hear people in Europe being called racist i have to wonder if they are actually against a. Group of people because of their race or their ideology .

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Where the book comes up short for me is after setting that up it just keeps going for too long in my opinion, starting to meander

It definitely does meander.

so Hitler comes across as not really 'historical Hitler' in parts

Honestly I think Hitler in Look Who's Back is probably one of the most accurate portrayals of the man in fiction. The author points out that people have a tendency to generalize Hitler, completely overlooking the man's charisma and way with words. Films like Downfall focus on his later years where he did start raving like a madman at lot, but Hitler didn't start out that way. It's one reason why the author insisted the price tag for the book by 19.33 instead of the original tag of 19.45, because Hitler didn't seem like a madman to most of the world when he first rose to power. He was approachable, charismatic, and talked about problems people wanted to talk about in ways they wanted to talk about it. Throughout the book I think the author actually does a good job of doing what most of humanity today is unwilling to really do; see Adolf Hitler as a human being, because that to plays into the books point. Hitler was a human being and what he did and thought are all things a human being did. We don't like thinking human beings can throw people in ovens, blow up bombs on crowded streets, or behead people by the thousands. We separate such people from ourselves by calling them inhuman or monsters. Yet they are still people and the dark reality is that these are things people are capable of doing.

Islam is not a race it's an ideology. People can be against an ideology without being racist.

The issue is that in the west Islam is predominantly seen and approached as "Arab" by default. I could even reference a few books that directly address this reality. Beyond that there's also the problem that "racism" is often invoked in any case where someone is being a bigot which kind of goes both ways. On the one hand sure, hating muslims isn't literal racism because "muslim" isn't a race, but on the other hand why are we quibbling over that? Bigotry is still bigotry and ardently crying out "but I can't be racist against an ideology" comes off as childish and deflecting from the underlying criticism that caused someone to shout racism in the first place.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

so Hitler comes across as not really 'historical Hitler' in parts

Honestly I think Hitler in Look Who's Back is probably one of the most accurate portrayals of the man in fiction. The author points out that people have a tendency to generalize Hitler, completely overlooking the man's charisma and way with words. Films like Downfall focus on his later years where he did start raving like a madman at lot, but Hitler didn't start out that way. It's one reason why the author insisted the price tag for the book by 19.33 instead of the original tag of 19.45, because Hitler didn't seem like a madman to most of the world when he first rose to power. He was approachable, charismatic, and talked about problems people wanted to talk about in ways they wanted to talk about it. Throughout the book I think the author actually does a good job of doing what most of humanity today is unwilling to really do; see Adolf Hitler as a human being, because that to plays into the books point. Hitler was a human being and what he did and thought are all things a human being did. We don't like thinking human beings can throw people in ovens, blow up bombs on crowded streets, or behead people by the thousands. We separate such people from ourselves by calling them inhuman or monsters. Yet they are still people and the dark reality is that these are things people are capable of doing.

While it is true people tend to forgo the early years and think about Hitler as a raving lunatic, I also think the book generalizes too much and throws in pieces that don't fit what is known about Hitler at all (the dog). Hell, the book even makes early Hitler seem worse in actions that 'real' Hitler likely wouldn't have taken, after all he was politically savvy. Also the bestseller having read some of his work, I highly doubt it could become one on its own merit. So the problem isn't that he isn't mad, the problem is that he is too mad for a 1933 portrayel of him. It doesn't help that his views aren't just contained up to 1933 but seem to vary wildly into the 40's. Its all over the place. Plus it openly seems to misrepresent how aware Germany actually was about Hitler's views in 1933, few people had even heard of his book and he had downplayed his antisemitism, so the notion that the 1933 Germans knew what they were voting for when it came to the 40's is just a bit out there.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Hell, the book even makes early Hitler seem worse in actions that 'real' Hitler likely wouldn't have taken, after all he was politically savvy.

That's the thing. There is no early Hitler. There's just Hitler. That's why I say the book isn't about Hitler but about people and society, because the book uses its narrative to parallel the development of perceptions of Hitler rather than the development of Hitler's ideology. Mein Kampf was published in 1925. It wasn't secret or hidden but completely public what Hitler thought and wanted to do, and yet still Germany and the world by a large underestimated and didn't fully appreciate the man they were dealing with.

I don't think the author misrepresents how aware people were at all. People knew, but as the author points out and as we can even see in modern politics people didn't take a lot of what Hitler said seriously nor did they fully appreciate that there were people who took what he said deadly seriously.

so the notion that the 1933 Germans knew what they were voting for when it came to the 40's is just a bit out there.

That's exactly Look Who's Back's point when it talks about this subject. Hitler didn't even win the 32 election. It's somewhat ludicrous in hindsight that people actually look back and ask "how did you people let this happen" because no one really let it happen. Even people who appreciated his madness, failed to appreciate how much it had spread. They thought he could be controlled, appeased, or negotiated with. People in Germany thought they could just elect someone else later, or that other political parties would keep him controlled. People foolishly held faith that Hindenburg could keep Hitler in check, or that Hitler's lieutenants could be persuaded to change parties. When Hitler promised a powerless man soon to be thrown out of government (Papen) that he would respect the office of the President, protect the press, and and a whole bunch of other gak he was never going to do, people believed him despite obvious warning signs that Hitler would never keep such a promise.

Rampant naivete put Hitler in power more than anything and that's the full point of Look Who's Back; people are incredibly naive. Even today we foolishly sit in self-righteousness that we'd never elect "Hitler" fully ignorant that in 1933 no one else thought they were electing "Hitler" either.

 LordofHats wrote:


The issue is that in the west Islam is predominantly seen and approached as "Arab" by default. I could even reference a few books that directly address this reality. Beyond that there's also the problem that "racism" is often invoked in any case where someone is being a bigot which kind of goes both ways. On the one hand sure, hating muslims isn't literal racism because "muslim" isn't a race, but on the other hand why are we quibbling over that? Bigotry is still bigotry and ardently crying out "but I can't be racist against an ideology" comes off as childish and deflecting from the underlying criticism that caused someone to shout racism in the first place.

Yes I know that the majority of. Muslims are Arab. That does not make being anti radical Islam racist. I am against radical Islam because it is a barbaric, fascist, totalitarian social and political system that espouses the forcible imposition of Islam as a way of life, supremacy of the Muslim male, the subjugation of non Muslims, the slavery of women and the. Murder of all who refuse to submit to Islam. Also it lies because islam does not mean peace, it means submission.

Now instead of dealing with these issues people just yell 'racist' at me for opposing side Islam. And honestly, it really gets on my nerves. How can people who are usually dedicated to women's rights, gay rights, religious freedom rights, etc defend a belief that opposes women's rights, condemns gays to death and preaches the utter dominion of one religion?

When i point this out I am of course simply called 'racist' again...

People who do this are really not doing any good because after being called, wrongfully and idiotically, 'racist' over and over again, the peolel being accused of this often become so enraged and frustrated they decide to just go full Monty and full racist since they'll be called that as long as they don't agree in lock step with the people calling them racist constantly.

Honestly, I try to tell people I don't oppose radical Islam because of any racial issue since Islam isn't a race. I try to explain I am against radical Islam because it would eliminate the rights of non Muslims. And I feel like a might as well. Be trying to reason with a lake full of frogs mindlessly croaking 'racist racist' ad infinutum.

So eventually both sides stop even trying to communicate with each other because it's utterly futile. That's not good for a Democratic society.


Really, Europe needs to talk about some of it's issues instead of having a situation where one sides position is 'We're going to do nothing but yell 'racist' at you as long as you disagree with us instead of discussing what we disagree about. '' and the other says "we're not going to let you beat us down by yelling racist at us constantly. ''

Both sides quit bothering even trying to communicate and work things out and just basically work on beating down the other.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Hell, the book even makes early Hitler seem worse in actions that 'real' Hitler likely wouldn't have taken, after all he was politically savvy.

That's the thing. There is no early Hitler. There's just Hitler. That's why I say the book isn't about Hitler but about people and society, because the book uses its narrative to parallel the development of perceptions of Hitler rather than the development of Hitler's ideology. Mein Kampf was published in 1925. It wasn't secret or hidden but completely public what Hitler thought and wanted to do, and yet still Germany and the world by a large underestimated and didn't fully appreciate the man they were dealing with.

I don't think the author misrepresents how aware people were at all. People knew, but as the author points out and as we can even see in modern politics people didn't take a lot of what Hitler said seriously nor did they fully appreciate that there were people who took what he said deadly seriously.

To be fair, there is an early Hitler as in a younger man who's ideas shifted. In 1925 he had some general ideas, but between Mein Kampf and what actually happened there are quite some differences. 1933 Hitler and 1945 Hitler are different people even if for the greater part they are still the same person. Few people stay exactly the same person for 20 years, unless perhaps you close yourself off from all outside experiences.

To an extent you can say it was public knowledge, it would be for those who chose to dig deeper, which to circle back to the topic at hand is exactly what the AfD problem is, people look at the party program instead of the person, exactly what they did with the NSDAP.

I know the book isn't about Hitler, but I'm just nitpicking that it picks Hitler and then forms certain inconsistencies. Yeah its artistic license, but then it feels like the book just picked Hitler to present the wider subject because of marketing.

so the notion that the 1933 Germans knew what they were voting for when it came to the 40's is just a bit out there.

That's exactly Look Who's Back's point when it talks about this subject. Hitler didn't even win the 32 election. It's somewhat ludicrous in hindsight that people actually look back and ask "how did you people let this happen" because no one really let it happen. Even people who appreciated his madness, failed to appreciate how much it had spread. They thought he could be controlled, appeased, or negotiated with. People in Germany thought they could just elect someone else later, or that other political parties would keep him controlled. People foolishly held faith that Hindenburg could keep Hitler in check, or that Hitler's lieutenants could be persuaded to change parties. When Hitler promised a powerless man soon to be thrown out of government (Papen) that he would respect the office of the President, protect the press, and and a whole bunch of other gak he was never going to do, people believed him despite obvious warning signs that Hitler would never keep such a promise.

Rampant naivete put Hitler in power more than anything and that's the full point of Look Who's Back; people are incredibly naive. Even today we foolishly sit in self-righteousness that we'd never elect "Hitler" fully ignorant that in 1933 no one else thought they were electing "Hitler" either.

Speaking about 'look who's back' as an American who saw it subtitled, I got different messages. Inn the scene after the guy throws htiler off the building and turns and turns around to see hitler right there saying 'You can never get rid of me, I'll always be there. ' I took it to mean germany has tried to bury it's past by banning all images of nazism, but the truth is it is still there and will. Always be there. That was one message, and I could see it because I know germany has gone to such lengths to ban nazi. Imagery it even bans anti nazi stuff like the 'wolfenstein' game series and the novel 'the iron dream'.

So the message I got right or wrong was that germany has tried so hard to blot out the past it could not recognize it when it literally showed up right in front of it.
Maybe I was misreading the message.

Techpriestsupport wrote:


Yes I know that the majority of. Muslims are Arab.

Arabs are a minority in Islam. The majority of Muslims are South-East Asian, but the west generally doesn't deal a lot with Indonesia, and well terrorism in Indonesia rarely exports itself our way so we don't often think of them when thinking about Muslims.

That does not make being anti radical Islam racist.

And this is where I point out the constant pitfall; the casual transition between "how is disagreeing with muslims racist" to "I disagree with radical Islam." Really this is a game played by bigoted politicians and played into by otherwise non-bigoted supporters. I make that determination because I don't think politicians are so oblivious that they can't notice that talking about "Islam general" constantly gets them into trouble. Instead they play a word game where they start out talking about "Islam general" and then when someone cries the racist/bigot/xenophobe/hate whistle they make a sudden transition to "I wasn't talking about all Muslims just the radical ones." I've seen this, frankly speaking, stupid little word game play out countless times on national stages and get reiterated by supporters. I've seen it here on Dakka.

Say what you mean, or people will assume you mean what you say. A casual misunderstanding here and there is bound to happen, but when a politician makes the same misunderstanding speech after speech and year after year it's obvious that their either too stupid to be in charge of anyone or they're doing it on purpose.

I am against radical Islam because it is a barbaric, fascist, totalitarian social and political system that espouses the forcible imposition of Islam as a way of life, supremacy of the Muslim male, the subjugation of non Muslims, the slavery of women and the. Murder of all who refuse to submit to Islam. Also it lies because islam does not mean peace, it means submission.

And it really doesn't help that people who are "anti-radical Islam" don't seem to understand Islam at all, it's radical interpretations or it's general ones and casually conflate them in a vague and confusing manner such as this. Of course I find this true of any society. We all have piss poor understandings of religions other than our own, and a big part of that is just communication failure. Arabic is a consonantal triliteral language. Most Semitic languages are (this includes Hebrew). That means the root of every word is general speaking its consonants. The root of Islam, SLM and this root is literally translated as "to be safe, at peace." As a derivative of its root, the word Islam literally means "to submit and be at peace" and its a core component of the religion. Peace comes from submission to god's will, which is really a core of all Abrahamic faiths (who are also generally accused of being barbaric, fascist, totalitarian social and political enties that espouse the forcible imposition of their religion's customs on others, the supremacy of men, subjugation of non-believers, inferiority of women to the point of slavery, and are filled with people at various points in reference who have wanted to kill any who don't believe as they do), but that doesn't stop people from wildly making the word mean whatever they want it to mean.

Now instead of dealing with these issues people just yell 'racist' at me for opposing side Islam.

Well you kind of set yourself up for that honestly. Which isn't to say it's fair, but given your own response I can see why people say it. Criticism and being told your wrong gets on everyone's nerves, but its not really the responsibility of others to bend over backwards and understand your meaning. You have to make yourself clear, and if you want to express your opposition to Islamic religious tenants I'd first suggest actually understanding them because it's not hard to see that you do not. Islam is the second largest religion in the world. It includes women haters who burn adulterers in the streets as well as Imam's who defend young girls from being stoned to death by mobs for incredibly minor breaches of etiquette.

The "I'm only racist because people call me racist" excuse is certainly understandable in a way. People throw the word around too casually, but at the end of the day that failure isn't just on people throwing the word around casually. The brandishing of ignorance as a shield runs both ways here.

Techpriestsupport wrote:
Speaking about 'look who's back' as an American who saw it subtitled, I got different messages. Inn the scene after the guy throws htiler off the building and turns and turns around to see hitler right there saying 'You can never get rid of me, I'll always be there. ' I took it to mean germany has tried to bury it's past by banning all images of nazism, but the truth is it is still there and will. Always be there. That was one message, and I could see it because I know germany has gone to such lengths to ban nazi. Imagery it even bans anti nazi stuff like the 'wolfenstein' game series and the novel 'the iron dream'.

So the message I got right or wrong was that germany has tried so hard to blot out the past it could not recognize it when it literally showed up right in front of it.
Maybe I was misreading the message.

Kinda misreading, Germany never tried to bury its past. Its very open to it and perhaps one of the most publically aware countries when it comes to past atrocities. Banning Nazi imagery isn't the same as burying the past, its about not letting it gain a platform again.

 LordofHats wrote:

Techpriestsupport wrote:


Yes I know that the majority of. Muslims are Arab.

Arabs are a minority in Islam. The majority of Muslims are South-East Asian, but the west generally doesn't deal a lot with Indonesia, and well terrorism in Indonesia rarely exports itself our way so we don't often think of them when thinking about Muslims.

That does not make being anti radical Islam racist.

And this is where I point out the constant pitfall; the casual transition between "how is disagreeing with muslims racist" to "I disagree with radical Islam." Really this is a game played by bigoted politicians and played into by otherwise non-bigoted supporters. I make that determination because I don't think politicians are so oblivious that they can't notice that talking about "Islam general" constantly gets them into trouble. Instead they play a word game where they start out talking about "Islam general" and then when someone cries the racist/bigot/xenophobe/hate whistle they make a sudden transition to "I wasn't talking about all Muslims just the radical ones." I've seen this, frankly speaking, stupid little word game play out countless times on national stages and get reiterated by supporters. I've seen it here on Dakka.

Say what you mean, or people will assume you mean what you say. A casual misunderstanding here and there is bound to happen, but when a politician makes the same misunderstanding speech after speech and year after year it's obvious that their either too stupid to be in charge of anyone or they're doing it on purpose.

I am against radical Islam because it is a barbaric, fascist, totalitarian social and political system that espouses the forcible imposition of Islam as a way of life, supremacy of the Muslim male, the subjugation of non Muslims, the slavery of women and the. Murder of all who refuse to submit to Islam. Also it lies because islam does not mean peace, it means submission.

And it really doesn't help that people who are "anti-radical Islam" don't seem to understand Islam at all, it's radical interpretations or it's general ones and casually conflate them in a vague and confusing manner such as this. Of course I find this true of any society. We all have piss poor understandings of religions other than our own, and a big part of that is just communication failure. Arabic is a consonantal triliteral language. Most Semitic languages are (this includes Hebrew). That means the root of every word is general speaking its consonants. The root of Islam, SLM and this root is literally translated as "to be safe, at peace." As a derivative of its root, the word Islam literally means "to submit and be at peace" and its a core component of the religion. Peace comes from submission to god's will, which is really a core of all Abrahamic faiths (who are also generally accused of being barbaric, fascist, totalitarian social and political enties that espouse the forcible imposition of their religion's customs on others, the supremacy of men, subjugation of non-believers, inferiority of women to the point of slavery, and are filled with people at various points in reference who have wanted to kill any who don't believe as they do), but that doesn't stop people from wildly making the word mean whatever they want it to mean.

Now instead of dealing with these issues people just yell 'racist' at me for opposing side Islam.

Well you kind of set yourself up for that honestly. Which isn't to say it's fair, but given your own response I can see why people say it. Criticism and being told your wrong gets on everyone's nerves, but its not really the responsibility of others to bend over backwards and understand your meaning. You have to make yourself clear, and if you want to express your opposition to Islamic religious tenants I'd first suggest actually understanding them because it's not hard to see that you do not. Islam is the second largest religion in the world. It includes women haters who burn adulterers in the streets as well as Imam's who defend young girls from being stoned to death by mobs for incredibly minor breaches of etiquette.

The "I'm only racist because people call me racist" excuse is certainly understandable in a way. People throw the word around too casually, but at the end of the day that failure isn't just on people throwing the word around casually. The brandishing of ignorance as a shield runs both ways here.

Ok, see, this is where and how pretty much any an all attempts at discussion on this matter end.


One side says it does not want islam forced on it and is concerned that too many people want to do just that.

The other side pushes the "racist" button.

When the first side tries to explain it's not about race but about the desire of a group to force their laws on everyone, the second side just pushes the "You don't understand islam!" button and the "Not all muslims!" button.

I have studies islam and it does call for global islamic dominion. Now other people will poi t to suras in the koran that deny this, however thyey don;t point out an important fact: In the koran it is written that sometimes 2 suras will contradict each other and in such cases the part that comes later in the Koran is to be considered right.

So yes there are suras in the koran that call for acceptance and tolerance, but later suras call for the forcible subjugation of non muslims and the death of those who will not submit, and by the korans own rules those suras take precedence oveer the earlier suras.

At which point the other side presses the "racist" and "You don't understand islam" buttons again, and maybe "but the bible says bad things too." button.

Yes, the bible says bad things, but the difference is that in western culture, society housebroke christianity and makes christianity subordinate to society. So even if the bible says "suffer not a witch to live" it;s still illegal to murder Ms. Minerva down the street for being a practicing wiccan.

In most mideast culture islam dominates society so if Ms. Minerva refuses to wear a veil and goes out in public without a male relative escort you arrest her, imprison her, maybe whip or even stone her to death because the koran says so.

But, hey, I'm bailing out on this conversation now because I've had it before, literally dozens of times. And every time goes the exact same way. Soeone says they don;t want islamic fundamentalism taking over their society. The other side pushes the 'racism' button. We try to say that it's not about race its about ideology. the other side pushes the "You don;t underastand islam!" and "But the bibles says bad things to!" buttons, and the "not all muslims" button.

There's no point in trying to discuss this. Both sides have been driven into concrete bunkers over it and will never be able to discuss it, let alone do anything about the it or the other issues tearing their societies apart.

And yes I'm an american and yes the exact same thing happened to my country, so I'm not disparaging germany or england or anywhere else, it happened to my country too, I'm just depressed it seems to be the new status quo.

Bit of a paradox isn't it, if Islam "dominates" society, how come not all Muslim majority countries are the same? And if they can't even "dominate" Muslim majority countries how the hell is Islamic fundamentalism going to take over Western countries like Germany? Saudi Arabia as one of the most fundementalist countries is even reforming a little. Its almost a non issue. Europe has had large groups of Muslims since the 60's and 70's, it itsn't suddenly.going to overtake society 50 years down the line.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Bit of a paradox isn't it, if Islam "dominates" society, how come not all Muslim majority countries are the same? And if they can't even "dominate" Muslim majority countries how the hell is Islamic fundamentalism going to take over Western countries like Germany? Saudi Arabia as one of the most fundementalist countries is even reforming a little. Its almost a non issue. Europe has had large groups of Muslims since the 60's and 70's, it itsn't suddenly.going to overtake society 50 years down the line.

Islam is divided into several sects, sunni and shiite being the most common. They've been fighting and killing each other over the divisions between their sects for a long time, like christianity used to kill each other over divisions between catholics, cathars, gnostics, baptists, methodists, lutherans, mormons, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Techpriestsupport wrote:
Speaking about 'look who's back' as an American who saw it subtitled, I got different messages. Inn the scene after the guy throws htiler off the building and turns and turns around to see hitler right there saying 'You can never get rid of me, I'll always be there. ' I took it to mean germany has tried to bury it's past by banning all images of nazism, but the truth is it is still there and will. Always be there. That was one message, and I could see it because I know germany has gone to such lengths to ban nazi. Imagery it even bans anti nazi stuff like the 'wolfenstein' game series and the novel 'the iron dream'.

So the message I got right or wrong was that germany has tried so hard to blot out the past it could not recognize it when it literally showed up right in front of it.
Maybe I was misreading the message.

Kinda misreading, Germany never tried to bury its past. Its very open to it and perhaps one of the most publically aware countries when it comes to past atrocities. Banning Nazi imagery isn't the same as burying the past, its about not letting it gain a platform again.

Ok, well I may have misread things, but I know germany banned norman spinrad's novel "the iron dream" for years even tho it was an anti hitler parody and satire. Likewise I have heard you can't get the wolfenstein games there even tho they are pretty damn anti nazi because nazi imagery. Am I wrong?

But no one's called you racist, all that happened was that LordofHats pointed out how one of your statements was incorrect and you immediately went into defensive mode. You can't really complain when someone points out that you made a demonstrably faulty argument.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
But no one's called you racist, all that happened was that LordofHats pointed out how one of your statements was incorrect and you immediately went into defensive mode. You can't really complain when someone points out that you made a demonstrably faulty argument.

Ok, LoH did say most muslims were non arab, and that might be true. But most arabs are muslim. Also he said that most musilms were south east asian. Even if it's true it does make most mulsims non caucasian and as such many people simply, automatically, claim any time a caucasian criticizes or disagtrees with a non caucasian. So, again, many toimes a euorpean is labled and dismised as a racist simply for disagreeing with or opposing fundamantalist islam.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To make a last comment in this thread, as an american my opinion about merkel might might mean much, I admit. But I personally like her for her statement she made about trump to americans.

Techpriestsupport wrote:
When the first side tries to explain it's not about race but about the desire of a group to force their laws on everyone, the second side just pushes the "You don't understand islam!" button and the "Not all muslims!" button.

Honestly. You don't understand Islam, and you can say your anti-radical Islam all you want but the sentence quoted there makes it really confusing who you're talking about. The casual transition from generality and specificity is kind of a bitch in these discussions, which you can accept as a problem that needs to be worked through on your end since you're the one doing it, or you can be upset that people aren't understanding you.

I have studies islam and it does call for global islamic dominion.

Except it doesn't. If anything Islam is probably one of the least evangelizing religions on the planet, especially when you compare it to Christianity and Buddhism. Kind of goes hand in hand with being very decentralized which in itself makes it really hard for anything as general as "Islam calls for global islamic dominion" to be true. There's some Muslims who think that but some is not "Islam."

Now other people will poi t to suras in the koran that deny this, however thyey don;t point out an important fact: In the koran it is written that sometimes 2 suras will contradict each other and in such cases the part that comes later in the Koran is to be considered right.

So yes there are suras in the koran that call for acceptance and tolerance, but later suras call for the forcible subjugation of non muslims and the death of those who will not submit, and by the korans own rules those suras take precedence oveer the earlier suras.

Yeah this is kind of true of most written religious texts. Any Christian can give you countless examples of people taking verses out of context, and any well read one can probably list more than a few contradictions just in a single book. But of course if I were to go around pointing out how the Bible says in Timothy that women should be submissive to men and never speak with authority to men, I'd probably be called a misogynist cause well that's kind of a misogynistic thing to say. Good thing this isn't how most Christians today look at women or Timothy 2:11 assuming they've even read 2:11 cause I find most religious people have on casually read their own holy books at best. Though I suppose Christians have the excuse that the Bible is really freaking long while the Koran is comparatively short but still

And you're just showing that you don't understand Islam. Islam does not form a division between Surahs. All Surahs are equally authoritative because they're all part of the divine revelation to Mohommed. Their arrangement is completely regardless of authority, chronology, or even their theme. The only division drawn by Islam between Surah's is their total length (they are arranged in order from longest to shortest) and when they were purportedly revealed (before or after Mohammed's exile from Mecca). You might be confusing the Surah's with Hadith, but I'm not sure because the earlier a Hadith is chronologically the more authoritative it is considered to be, and even then Islamic scholars madly debate which Hadith are real and which are fake. The innate incoherence of the Surahs actually has its own word in Islamic studies (munasabah) because it doesn't take a genius to notice that many Surah are contradictory (especially since the Koran is for a religious text on the short side) and that the organization of verses and chapters is confusing as feth bordering at times on chaotic. Reconciling the coherence of the text has been a topic of debate, literally, since the religion started.

At which point the other side presses the "racist" and "You don't understand islam" buttons again, and maybe "but the bible says bad things too." button.

Well of course they do. You really don't seem to understand Islam, and the Bible does say bad things too, but no one in the west generally regards the Bible with such ignorance as they regard the Koran, which is mostly a matter of familiarity and actual study. Its also useful to bring up the Bible because we know Christians today by and large ignore large swathes of it in daily life. Clearly the innate fashion superiority of ripped jeans takes priority over Leviticus 10:6, and love clearly conquers Timothy 2:9 because as we all know every kiss begins with Kay. The Koran also bans the practice of interest in financing but hundreds of millions of Muslims have credit cards and every bank in the Middle East collects and issues interest because that's modern economics.

All Christians either ignore that they ignore huge amounts of what the Bible says in their daily life, or are openly aware that they ignore huge amounts of what the Bible says in their daily life. It's useful to bring up the Bible because this is true, but for some baffling reason we recognize that followers of a common religion in the west ignore a lot of their own text, but we somehow hold followers of another religion to their text to the word.

Yes, the bible says bad things, but the difference is that in western culture, society housebroke christianity and makes christianity subordinate to society. So even if the bible says "suffer not a witch to live" it;s still illegal to murder Ms. Minerva down the street for being a practicing wiccan.

And the Koran explicitly forbids the killing of Ahl-al-Kitab, and calls on Muslims to seek wisdom from them but not too much wisdom because come on. Those Christians think God has a son. There's clearly something wrong with them /sarcsm Obviously this isn't the foremost command in some minds because it turns out that just because a holy book says something doesn't mean the faithful are gonna do it. When's the last time Christians did as Deuteronomy 17:7 commands?

In most mideast culture islam dominates society

You could say the same thing about the West and Christianity for most of the recent past. Heavy forbid you be gay in a predominantly Christian country. I mean you might be imprisoned. Or electrocuted. Or told that god hates you in the most love your neighborly way possible.

Saudi Arabia isn't an example of all Middle Eastern countries and their laws are a poor representation of what most people there actually believe. Lots of people who live there find Saudi Arabia's laws on women archaic, which is why there's mounting social pressure the change them. Besides. That whole "women can't drive" thing was all Elizabeth's fault anyway We all know how women drivers are amiright (I kid)

But, hey, I'm bailing out on this conversation now because I've had it before, literally dozens of times.

Honestly you seem to just be making mountains of convenient assumptions about this conversation but w/e.

Someone says they don't want islamic fundamentalism taking over their society.

It probably would help to actually understand what fundamentalists believe and how it is different from radicals, violent extremists, political Islamists and all the various other spins on the religion which of course is wildly time consuming which is why it's so easy for all the misconceptions and nonsense people think about Islam to propegate and stick around. So you can complain about how both sides have been driven into their concrete bunkers, but maybe you should dare to step out of yours. In the words of Batman if you want to make the world a better place take a look at yourself and make a change (and protect your abs). Cease conflating the general and the specific. It does you no favors. You've done it through your entire post which leaves anyone reading it baffled and with little choice but to assume one of various things that inevitably lead to such cries as racist and bigot.

Also probably helps to not make assumptions about other people's responses to you. I haven't said your racist. I've said your say things that are going to make people think you are, but you seem more interested in being offended and expressing your indignation than considering that there's something you can do about that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Bit of a paradox isn't it, if Islam "dominates" society, how come not all Muslim majority countries are the same? And if they can't even "dominate" Muslim majority countries how the hell is Islamic fundamentalism going to take over Western countries like Germany? Saudi Arabia as one of the most fundementalist countries is even reforming a little. Its almost a non issue. Europe has had large groups of Muslims since the 60's and 70's, it itsn't suddenly.going to overtake society 50 years down the line.

See I made that entire wall of quotes response and this guy just said most of what I wanted to actually get across in like five sentences.

I need to learn brevity damnit.

Lordofhats, you are simply wrong. I can't say it any other way.

The cunningly written Koran does contain suras that look nice and peaceful, but in the later parts it rescinds all of them.

This is what the Koran says:

"Fight until there is no more fitna (dissent, chaos) and all religion is for Allah alone." Qur'an Chapter 8, "al-Anfal"; verse 29.

If you study the life of Muhammad you will see that he routinely sent his men out to raid until he had conquered most of Arabia within the ten year period between the hijra and his death. Taking over most of the Arabian peninsula within a decade doesn't just happen by accident, as much as Muslims tell you that all his battles were defensive. What a Muslim means by "defensive" is that Muhammad was "defending" all those poor misguided Christians, Jews, and polytheists from the falsehood and oppression of their own religions.

As for the old Meccan verse which Muslims like to trot out, "Let there be no compulsion in religion," that was abrogated by so many later verses that gave Muhammad "permission" to fight (22:39), then made fighting an "obligation" (2:216), then instructed them to "cut the necks (of the polytheists) and chop every finger" (8:12) and many other verses, including "slay the polytheists wherever you find them, take them captive, and lay ambush for them" (9:5). For the Qur'anic verse on how later verses abrogate the earlier ones, look up 2:106: "None of our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better..."

Look at that. The Koran tells Muslims to kill non Muslims wherever they find any. Period. It tells them to fight until the only religion is Islam. Period.

I'm not arguing the point anymore. People in many countries that value freedom are justly concerned with people coming in with views like that. That's the issue. That's why many people in europe are concerned with a wave of refugees that might contain a large number of people who believe their God commands them force their views on everyone, everywhere. A steady stream of bombings and other acts of mass. Murder show these people have grounds to be concerned about.

Likewise I have heard you can't get the wolfenstein games there even tho they are pretty damn anti nazi because nazi imagery. Am I wrong?

Sorta. You can buy them here, but the imagery is censored.

Not getting into the religion thing here, last time I offended practically everyone .

Techpriestsupport wrote:
The cunningly written Koran does contain suras that look nice and peaceful, but in the later parts it rescinds all of them.

Except that's not how the Koran is read or regarded by any Islamic sect. Honestly. I don't know where you heard that. It's a new one to me and I've come across all kinds of nonsense.

"Fight until there is no more fitna (dissent, chaos) and all religion is for Allah alone." Qur'an Chapter 8, "al-Anfal"; verse 29.

When is the last time any Christian or Jew did as Deuteronomy 17:7 commands?

Cunningly written is an odd way to describe the Koran. Even top tier Muslim scholars often regard the prose of the work as exemplary but the actual writing as chaos. See Christians got around this. We wrote our gak down within 100 years of Jesus dying. None of that debating the merits of oral tradition vs written tradition over here The Muslims tried the whole oral tradition thing first and then realized that wasn't working for them

If you study the life of Muhammad you will see that he routinely sent his men out to raid until he had conquered most of Arabia within the ten year period between the hijra and his death. Taking over most of the Arabian peninsula within a decade doesn't just happen by accident, as much as Muslims tell you that all his battles were defensive. What a Muslim means by "defensive" is that Muhammad was "defending" all those poor misguided Christians, Jews, and polytheists from the falsehood and oppression of their own religions.

Yes yes yes. And the Crusades were all about God and Christendom until it came time to carve up the pie. I haven't proclaimed Muhammad a paragon of virtue and peacefulness, but you're talking about events over one thousand years in the past and using them to judge the present. Christians used to do the whole smite the infidels bit too but only supreme douchbags still hold it against them cause it happened a long ass time ago.

And even with that generalization you're still showing a bad understanding of Islam. Millions of Christians and tens of thousands of Jews have lived within the borders of Muslim countries for thousands of years cause Islam has never had a "kill um all" policy on infidels on a monolithic level. A tax them all policy to be sure, but Islam's history is particularly remarkable or commendable in regards to its treatment of other faiths for the most part. They're about the same there as everyone else, outside of India where things get really bizarre because like most of the rest of the world Islam has struggled to decide if Hindus are monotheistic or not (even the Hindus don't know )

As for the old Meccan verse which Muslims like to trot out, "Let there be no compulsion in religion," that was abrogated by so many later verses that gave Muhammad "permission" to fight (22:39), then made fighting an "obligation" (2:216), then instructed them to "cut the necks (of the polytheists) and chop every finger" (8:12) and many other verses, including "slay the polytheists wherever you find them, take them captive, and lay ambush for them" (9:5). For the Qur'anic verse on how later verses abrogate the earlier ones, look up 2:106: "None of our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better..."

Okay now you're just being obtuse and making a really shallow and transparent attempt to pretend you know what you're talking about. Surah's are are equal in Islam. None are considered to retcon the others.

First off Al-Baqara 256 isn't about not compelling anyone to believe anything. It's a philosophical statement of "fact" that is then explained in the following passages. Muslims have actually expanded this section at various points in history to justify freedom of religion, purging infidels, and even to support freedom of speech and association. Ultimately though the section itself is rather long winded way of saying "you can lead the horse to water but you can't make him drink." It has nothing to do with peace or war with other religions. It's a simple philosophical rationalization. It's in part a logical continuation of the underlying presumptions Islam has towards the nature of evil. Unlike Christianity, Judaism, and Zorastrianism Islam presumes that human beings are at their core "good." Evil is not born of temptation, of demons, original sin, or the nature of the universe but rather from willful choice. Ergo, someone who does not believe has chosen not to believe and nothing anyone can do is really going to convince them to believe. It's also why Islam isn't very big on evangelism. There's always been a common presumption to wit in the faith that anyone who comes across the Koran and doesn't see it's greatness can't be convinced otherwise so don't bother trying. This has been used to justify peace and war in Islamic history. You realize Christians had this debate once? The Bible says turn the other cheek, and many early Christians debated whether it was allowable under Jesus' teachings to defend themselves or fight in war. Eventually they kind of stopped debating the point because a religion of absolute pacifism is a religion that isn't going to be around for very long and well riding on horses and stabbing guys with long sticks was probably pretty fun for some people I guess and why let religion get in the way of fun?

For anyone interested Al-Haj 39 says "Permission has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged" which is really just a simple statement saying "you can defend yourself." Not so sure what's so evil about that or how it contradicts Al-Baqara 256 but w/e.

I'm assuming you have the wrong verse for "2:216" and "8:12". Al-Baqara 216 says;

Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.

There's nothing in there about fighting being an obligation... This is actually imo one of the most poetically beautiful lines in the entire book. I suspect whoever wrote it was very familiar with Ecclesiastes cause this kind of juxtaposition of man's ignorance with god's wisdom is very similar and pre-Islamic Arabs were very familiar with some Jewish texts.

Al-Anfal 12 says;

When your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

Which is a really confusing verse on its own. Al-Anfal basically means "spoils of war" and was written in part to codify proper conduct in wartime and other part as a historical recounting of the Battle of Badr in 624 CE, and is part of a pair with the following chapter At-Twaba which means "Repentence" which covers peacetime after a war. You'd know this if you actually studied Islam rather than just threw its verses out, or as I suspect repeat them from some source that threw them out cause wherever you're getting this from is tragically lacking in context. What your citing is part of a longer quotation attributed to Mohammed. Presumably the speech he gave to his army before the battle. Fitting with my earlier comment about turning the other cheek, the way the speech plays out presumably Mohommed's army didn't want to fight, but Mohommed encouraged them to fight because god had told them they must fight. So obviously you have to go fight cause god told you too, but this isn't a blanket permission to fight in this section. It's a description of the divine intervention at Badr where Muslims generally believe that God sent his angels to help Mohommed defeat the numerically superior Meccan army. Further the quote you cite itself has the angels being orders to strike people at the necks and cut off their fingers, not the Muslims and it was only for one battle. In fact two verses later (Al-Anfal 14) reads;

Taste it. And indeed for the disbelievers is the punishment of the Fire.

In this case the word for fire is Anam, which is a reference to Jahannam, the place of punishment in the afterlife i.e. hell for lack of a better word. The speech never even strictly justifies warfare (that part comes later), it basically just amounts to "god says we gotta fight and oh he's gonna send his homies to help us out so don't lose your gak or anything."

Honestly the only verse you've even gotten half right is Al-Tawbah 5, but you've either ignored or not been told about a rather important distinction the Koran and Islam makes in infidels. Namely that being "of the Book" is okay we won't kill you, but if you're not of the Book well you're kind of screwed. And yep. That's not nice. Of course Islam has been way more flexible with who qualifies as "of the book" that the Koran ever was. Christians, Jews, and Sabians are the only ones given explicit protection in the Koran, but Muslims have typically also granted the status to Zoroastrians. Baha'i is the only Abrahamic faith not covered. Over the course of history the protection of the status has generally been expanded to Buddhists and Hindus as well. Less so the former as Islam has historically had little contact with Buddhism, but in the case of Hinduism it was kind of necessity. Even when the Indian sub-continent was conquered it was one of the most populated parts of the planet. Can't exactly kill everyone for being a polytheist when everyone is a gak ton of people, especially when all the religious scholars couldn't decide if Hindus were polytheists or not. I imagine some Muslims picked up the Vedas and much like me walked away with a bad headache

Look at that. The Koran tells Muslims to kill non Muslims wherever they find any. Period. It tells them to fight until the only religion is Islam. Period.

Except it literally doesn't in any of the sections you cite. At worst Muslims are commanded to kill polytheists, something they didn't even do a whole lot of after they conquered Arabia and Parthia. Everyone north and west mostly was some kind of monotheist, who they're never given permission to kill because apparently any monotheist is at least a little right and worth sparing. Even then I suspect that command was ultimately a matter of political practicality. It justified the suppression of pre-Islamic polytheistic traditions, while not binding Muslims to doing the same to everyone else who they didn't really have a personal grudge with. Of course they did a whole lot of killing of monotheists anyway cause common. Its the 7th and 8th centuries. Driving your enemies before you and hearing the lamentations of the women was kind of the deal back then.

I'm not arguing the point anymore. People in many countries that value freedom are justly concerned with people coming in with views like that. That's the issue. That's why many people in europe are concerned with a wave of refugees that might contain a large number of people who believe their God commands them force their views on everyone, everywhere. A steady stream of bombings and other acts of mass. Murder show these people have grounds to be concerned about.

All that tells me is that there are people who are mind numbingly ignorant, have no interest in actually doing any fact checking or trying to understand someone unlike them, and are deathly afraid of foreigners coming in and taking over based on a whole lot of bad reading. And yeah. That's generally the kind of behavior that gets words like bigot and racist thrown around, but hey. Concrete bunkers apparently.

"Racist" modern day Europeans are anti-Islamic immigration not because they are against Islamic extremism. They are against the immigrants because they often have a somewhat dark skin tone.

It's exactly the same as British people who are against Pakistani or Sikh or Indian immigrants, who might be five or six different religions, but no-one is interested in their religion.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Bit of a paradox isn't it, if Islam "dominates" society, how come not all Muslim majority countries are the same? And if they can't even "dominate" Muslim majority countries how the hell is Islamic fundamentalism going to take over Western countries like Germany? Saudi Arabia as one of the most fundementalist countries is even reforming a little. Its almost a non issue. Europe has had large groups of Muslims since the 60's and 70's, it itsn't suddenly.going to overtake society 50 years down the line.

Islam is divided into several sects, sunni and shiite being the most common. They've been fighting and killing each other over the divisions between their sects for a long time, like christianity used to kill each other over divisions between catholics, cathars, gnostics, baptists, methodists, lutherans, mormons, etc.

That doesn't really answer the question with regards to Europe and Muslims being present since the 60's/70's.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Techpriestsupport wrote:
Speaking about 'look who's back' as an American who saw it subtitled, I got different messages. Inn the scene after the guy throws htiler off the building and turns and turns around to see hitler right there saying 'You can never get rid of me, I'll always be there. ' I took it to mean germany has tried to bury it's past by banning all images of nazism, but the truth is it is still there and will. Always be there. That was one message, and I could see it because I know germany has gone to such lengths to ban nazi. Imagery it even bans anti nazi stuff like the 'wolfenstein' game series and the novel 'the iron dream'.

So the message I got right or wrong was that germany has tried so hard to blot out the past it could not recognize it when it literally showed up right in front of it.
Maybe I was misreading the message.

Kinda misreading, Germany never tried to bury its past. Its very open to it and perhaps one of the most publically aware countries when it comes to past atrocities. Banning Nazi imagery isn't the same as burying the past, its about not letting it gain a platform again.

Ok, well I may have misread things, but I know germany banned norman spinrad's novel "the iron dream" for years even tho it was an anti hitler parody and satire. Likewise I have heard you can't get the wolfenstein games there even tho they are pretty damn anti nazi because nazi imagery. Am I wrong?

As XuQishi said, most games can just be bought in Germany, they just require some censoring. However as censoring falls to the developer and not the state, sometimes you end up with games that remain banned cause the developer isn't interested enough to change. Although it may seem a bit weird to us, its not that different from say censoring in Australia, just more specific.

Wow, this thread took quite a turn in the last few pages! Just a quick update on the grand coalition politics:

Schulz (SPD) is now expected to officially vote for the re-confirmation of Angela Merkel (CDU) for the position of chancellor. He states that he is "going to vote for a government that [he] was decidedly involved in forming". - And again, this coming from a guy that very clearly stated, in public - on twitter and otherwise - that he would not be open for a coalition with Merkel's CDU, right after last year's elections.

We are, of course, all used to politicians flip flopping, but in this case it just so very blatant that it irks me. I'm also not really sure what Schulz's end game is - he was aiming for the position of chancellor before the elections, and since then he has only lost influence and approval. It's clear to everyone he won't ever be chancellor in the future. Is this just his way of staying relevant in politics after his defeat?

Techpriestsupport wrote:So the message I got right or wrong was that germany has tried so hard to blot out the past it could not recognize it when it literally showed up right in front of it.
Maybe I was misreading the message.

Disciple of Fate wrote:Kinda misreading, Germany never tried to bury its past. Its very open to it and perhaps one of the most publically aware countries when it comes to past atrocities. Banning Nazi imagery isn't the same as burying the past, its about not letting it gain a platform again.

Techpriestsupport wrote:Ok, well I may have misread things, but I know germany banned norman spinrad's novel "the iron dream" for years even tho it was an anti hitler parody and satire. Likewise I have heard you can't get the wolfenstein games there even tho they are pretty damn anti nazi because nazi imagery. Am I wrong?

I put these three quotes together because those are in a way interconnected:

Nazi imagery is not banned per se but holocaust denial an glorification of Nazi Germany (and other unconstitutional organisations) is. There are also exceptions for art, science, research, and teaching if you want/need to use those symbols. We still have Neo-Nazis and they use all kinds of Nazi imagery in their protests even if they don't use a swastika and try to fly a bit under the radar and play civilised yet concerned citizen.

Like Disciple of Fate has mentioned, Germany has very much done the opposite of blotting out the past (unlike other countries, I could even point out some examples from the USA but that would get political). Neo-Nazis get regularly rather sad about this because it's just too much (and Germany is way too apologetic about the Holocaust for their taste). According to them the holocaust didn't happen but if it did (but it didn't) then it wasn't that bad, besides Hitler did nothing wrong, and so on

I looked the book up, and the following also goes for video games. If something ends up on the German index then it's usually not banned. It's just made harder to get for kids and you are restricted when it comes to advertising it. I just bought imported games as a teenager in the 90s and the index worked more like the Parental Advisory stickers that some CDs got and every teenager had to have those games (instead of shunning them). What can end up on the index also changes as public perception of things changes and you can also contest it if you think your work was wrongfully indexed. It even says in the book's wikipedia article that they were able to sell the book while it was on the index (it was just less accessible and later removed from the index). A lot of countries have some mechanic to make undesirable work less accessible to kids, even the USA

This means if you want to blame someone for the changes in video games, you might as well blame capitalism. Companies are so afraid to lose sales that they compromise their vision to standards they assumed from decades ago even thought the perception has changed (they could even contest the decision and change it). They compromise their standards all the time in the name of profit (for example when they want a lower rating from the ESRB or similar groups). That's not an "German only" problem as it exists in different degrees all over the world. And the self-censorship needed for mass appeal of popular work already compromises whatever creative vision people had with an efficiency that the index never could. The process is a bit opaque but the results are transparent, it's just that companies don't like to do the least bit of extra work

What we as society deem as acceptable depends on where you live and everybody draws the line somewhere, even the "free speech zone USA". Or are you all protesting against laws that forbid LGBTQ-inclusive sex-ed in public schools in some US states? Just because the USA has a first amendment in theory doesn't guarantee that it's actually a thing in practice. And that goes for quite a few topics even if it should all be allowed according to the constitution. And just bleating about free speech doesn't automatically make it reality

Speaking of Germany and things not allowed there, is it true Germany banned Scientology?

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Speaking of Germany and things not allowed there, is it true Germany banned Scientology?

You might be thinking about France, which has ruled it a cult/sect. Germany like many other countries actually has it exist in legal limbo, not actively banned, but not recognized as religion either. For example in the Netherlands we don't classify it as a religious organization for the overwhelming private profit motivation of scientology.

 Witzkatz wrote:
Wow, this thread took quite a turn in the last few pages! Just a quick update on the grand coalition politics:

Schulz (SPD) is now expected to officially vote for the re-confirmation of Angela Merkel (CDU) for the position of chancellor. He states that he is "going to vote for a government that [he] was decidedly involved in forming". - And again, this coming from a guy that very clearly stated, in public - on twitter and otherwise - that he would not be open for a coalition with Merkel's CDU, right after last year's elections.

We are, of course, all used to politicians flip flopping, but in this case it just so very blatant that it irks me. I'm also not really sure what Schulz's end game is - he was aiming for the position of chancellor before the elections, and since then he has only lost influence and approval. It's clear to everyone he won't ever be chancellor in the future. Is this just his way of staying relevant in politics after his defeat?

Merkel wins.

However she probbly will be dragging one big ass trail of her past years in office as baggage. It might not be the time now.

So at some point someone's going to have to take the europeen queen's Place. I'm not sure that her time in office will be easy more will her past events leave her alone.

Add Italy sliding dangerously put of there control, and anti EU.

Greece is still a basket case and anchor dragging on rocks.

Theres still issues in esstern Europe to face and Russia now growing potentially dangerous.

Disciple of Fate wrote:For example in the Netherlands we don't classify it as a religious organization for the overwhelming private profit motivation of scientology.

Same in Germany, there more on wikipedia if somebody's interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_in_Germany#Legal_status

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
One thing I see is people yelling ''racism! '' because people are opposed to radical Islam. Islam is not a race it's an ideology. People can be against an ideology without being racist.

Sort of but not really. I agree with you that opposing some broad idea isn't racism, however everything else there is a bit of a mess. For starters, Islam isn't an ideology, it's a religion. The distinction there is massive.

Second of all, to be opposed to something, your target needs to be on some level a clear, singular. But that isn't possible with Islam - I mean by all means oppose the ultra-oppressive, middle ages bs embraced by many muslims living in little villages in rural Iran, but also know that has basically nothing to do with Islam as its practiced by a Turkish Sufi, or some third generation Muslim of Indonesian descent who's last prayer was to during the Superbowl as he hoped his beloved Eagles could finally win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Yes I know that the majority of. Muslims are Arab.

No, a majority of Muslims are not Arabic. It isn't even close, less than 15% of Muslims are Arabic. In fact, the number of Muslims living in Indonesia is greater than the total of all arabic Muslims. Pakistan almost has more Muslims than all Arab Muslims as well.

That does not make being anti radical Islam racist.

No, but not knowing these basic facts about Islam does make you ignorant. Now I don't mean that as an attack, it's just the reality of the situation - you are ignorant of the basic facts of Islam.

 LordofHats wrote:
Arabs are a minority in Islam. The majority of Muslims are South-East Asian, but the west generally doesn't deal a lot with Indonesia, and well terrorism in Indonesia rarely exports itself our way so we don't often think of them when thinking about Muslims.

Just as a point of interest, Indonesia is the closest major nation. We have close relations with them for lots of things, particularly trade and security. There's a pretty decent immigration flow from Indonesia to Australia, and the single most popular tourist destination for Australians is Bali, which is a province of Indonesia.

Despite this, most Australians still associate Islam almost entirely with the Middle East. So its not just about which parts of Islam you deal with. It's more how Islam is presented to you and debated, and which parts of that debate a person wishes to hear.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
I have studies islam and it does call for global islamic dominion.

You thought Islam was majority Arabic. So you might need to spend some time thinking about how poorly your studies prepared you for the realities of Islam.

Now what you do show is a fair understanding of the fairly standard form attacks on Islam - it says this bad bit, or that bad bit, and unlike the bible the bad bits in the Koran count because its meant to be the word of God etc... Bleh. It's all crap of the silliest kind. None of it means a damn thing.

Here's what actually matters - Muslims are like Christians and like everyone else - they pick and choose which bits of a holy text works for them, which bits give them guidance they actually want to follow. And what bits they follow will be primarily determined by the culture surrounding them.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
Ok, LoH did say most muslims were non arab, and that might be true. But most arabs are muslim.

Most Ugandans are Christian. But trying to define Christianity by how it is practiced in Uganda would be obviously ridiculous. But that's what you've tried to do with Islam.

Also, there's no 'might be true'. It's a fact, and one you were ignorant of.

Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country, but Saudi Arabia is the heart of Islam. Nobody prays to Jakarta five times per day, and nobody goes on a holy pilgrimage there. Brazil isn't the face of Catholicism just because it has more Catholics than the Vatican.

 AlexHolker wrote:
Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country, but Saudi Arabia is the heart of Islam. Nobody prays to Jakarta five times per day, and nobody goes on a holy pilgrimage there. Brazil isn't the face of Catholicism just because it has more Catholics than the Vatican.

Sure, but it'd be completely wrong, and fairly ridiculous to claim that Catholicism was defined by Italy, and it'd be even sillier still for people to think Italy defined all of Christianity. But that's what people do when they KSA or the whole of the ME defines Islam.

 AlexHolker wrote:
Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country, but Saudi Arabia is the heart of Islam. Nobody prays to Jakarta five times per day, and nobody goes on a holy pilgrimage there. Brazil isn't the face of Catholicism just because it has more Catholics than the Vatican.

The Kaba is the heart of Islam, which happens to be located in Saudi Arabia along with a large number of major holy sites, but it's completely false to take that as the country of Saudi Arabia itself being the heart of Islam. How Saudi Arabia handles a lot of holy sites and the holy cities in particular is a major stress point between the Saudi state and the rest of the Islamic World, especially the parts of it outside the Middle East. The Saudi's are really big on pushing Wahhabist interpretations, but most Muslims are not Wahhabists and majorly disagree with their brand of fundamentalism. This is especially true in South-East Asia where Sufism is wildly popular among Muslims, and Sufi's are very much hated by Wahhabist dogma. They have to cooperate with the Saudi state because the Haaj is a required religious tenet, i.e. Indonesia can't go full bore and attack Saudi Arabia for being sacrilegious donkey-caves trying to force their particular interpretation on everyone else because the Saudi's could easily hold their access to Mecca and the great Mosque of Mecca hostage.

They're all forced to play nice with each other, and Saudi Arabia by virtue of claim and geography holds a lot of big cards, but that doesn't mean they like each other.