1,474 words
Friedrich Merz
Perhaps you recall that Germany held snap elections in February. If you’ve forgotten by now, I don’t blame you; the government-forming process took a while. As the Federal Government’s website informs us (my translation):
The Basic Law does not stipulate a fixed deadline for the election of a Federal Chancellor and thus for the formation of a government. The current federal government remains in office on a managerial basis until it is replaced by a new government.
Lovely.
Well, as it turns out to nobody’s surprise, the new federal government will not be so different from the current one, so – will anybody even notice the change when it finally happens?
As things stand at the time of writing, three parties will form the new coalition government: the election’s strongest party, the Christian Democrats (CDU), their sister party, the Christian Socialists (CSU – it doesn’t sound as weird in German as it does in English), and last but certainly not least the election’s biggest loser, the Social Democrats (SPD), current Chancellor Scholz’s party. Funny how that always works out.
Obviously not part of the government is the second strongest party, the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), but anyone who expected different lives in fantasy land. Formally, the Green Party is now also part of the opposition, but as the new governing parties seems more than willing to continue their long-time coalition partner’s policy, nothing significant will change. Still, that didn’t stop some Greens from calling the new government the “small coalition”, a dig at what a partnership between CSU and SPD has traditionally been called, a “great coalition”.
No names have yet been made public – again, at the time of writing – and it isn’t even clear yet whether Friedrich Merz will actually become chancellor as originally envisioned. His disapproval rate among the population is at 70 percent.
As to which ministries will go to which party, results have been contradictory. At first it was said that the CDU would get 7 ministries in addition to the Chancellor’s post, the SPD would get 5 ministries and the CSU 3. Shortly afterwards, a new distribution list was circulating: the SPD is to receive 7 ministries, a very high proportion given the 16% election result, with the CDU holding 6 ministries and the Chancellery. According to the newspaper Zeit:
SPD leader Saskia Esken has defended the distribution of ministries in the future federal government between the individual parties. The distribution and number of ministries had been decided “by consensus” and this was “in line with the reality of influence in the government due to the different sizes of the ministries”, Esken told brodacaster phoenix.
Apparently, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Defense will go to the SPD, so make of Esken’s “reality of influence” what you will.
The Chancellery and the Foreign Ministry will go to the CDU, as well the Ministry of Family Affairs, which will be expanded to include the sector Education as well as Children and Youth. (“As school education is largely a matter for the federal states, the focus will be on young children”, news magazine Focus informs us. Again, make of that what you will.)
The CSU will apparently get the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Ministry of Research. Until now, research has been in the same ministry as education. In future, the Ministry of Research is to be responsible for technology and astronautics, of all things.
Some reports claim CDU and CSU will share the Ministry of the Interior and the Foreign Office. Not yet known is the distribution of the Ministries of Economy, Culture, Environment, Infrastructure, Health, Labor, Development Aid and the newly created Digital Ministry.
The mainstream press stresses the “change of strategy in migration policy”, for example the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (F.A.Z.):
The words of the SPD’s working group on migration and diversity are therefore an unfriendly act. It is to be feared that the coalition will become “a catalyst for right-wing forces”, Aziz Bozkurt told the F.A.Z. [Of course somebody with a very German name like Aziz Bozkurt would say this, C.S.] Bozkurt heads the working group and recommends to SPD members: Reject it. In his opinion, there is “not even a hint” of a line in the planned migration policy. In combination with the few successes in social policy, this is a “heavy burden” with a view to the 2029 election year. The SPD’s handwriting was missing.
The efforts of the negotiators to remove the issue of revoking the citizenship of terror supporters, for example, were recognized. [Oh, really?] However, there were still unresolved issues. … It was also “a mockery” that legal migration routes were being closed. The additional powers for the federal police were legally questionable. …
Many in the CSU can also go along with the agreements on the topics of migration and integration: Rejection at the border, an end to family reunification for Syrians [only Syrians?], no privileged treatment for new refugees arriving from Ukraine compared to others [like the indigenous German population?]. The retraction of “turbo naturalization” after three years is also likely to meet with approval across the party.
The Greens, meanwhile, gripe about the lack of political will for climate protection and social justice. AfD’s Alice Weidel complains that the agreement bears the “signature of the election loser SPD, peppered with bows to the Greens”. Die Linke (The Left) is equally unhappy as high prices and rents were ignored. However,
There is praise for the negotiators from an unexpected quarter on Thursday. Angela Merkel speaks on Deutschlandfunk Kultur. The former Chancellor and CDU chairwoman welcomes the tougher migration course that the CDU/CSU and SPD want to take. There are certainly differences in “diction and tonality”, says Merkel on Deutschlandfunk Kultur. But “if you look closely”, she also had the same goals.
She really said it, and they really reported it, with a straight face.
She was also in favor of combating illegal migration and punishing smugglers. She also did not want people to risk their lives when fleeing.
No, she just encouraged the whole world to come to Europe in general and to Germany in particular. And if people not risking their lives when fleeing means flying them in, well, that’s fine with Mrs. Merkel, I guess.
On Thursday, Thorsten Frei, First Parliamentary Secretary of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, told the Phoenix channel that the new federal government does not want to disregard the will of the neighboring countries concerned when it comes to turning back asylum seekers at Germany’s borders. Frei is a confidant of Friedrich Merz, who has repeatedly campaigned for a much stricter migration policy. Now he says: “A new Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz will of course not push through a measure against the massive resistance of his neighbors.”
Translation: If a neighbor wants Third Worlders to cross the border into Germany instead of staying in the neighbor’s own country, Germany will servilely acquiesce.
Because this is what all of the excitement comes down to: Nothing will change in Germany’s immigration policy. Maybe the agreement looks somewhat good on paper, but as we say – Papier ist geduldig. Paper is patient. I just wish the German people weren’t.
Meanwhile, newest polls show the AfD in first place at 25 percent, which is probably why the effort to ban it will now intensify and likely succeed, especially in light of Marie Le Pen’s recent conviction. Even the Freie Wähler (Free Voters), the last party to defend the AfD’s right to exist after Sahra Wagenknecht’s BSW changed course and joined the “Ban AfD” chorus, is now calling for a ban. Their reason? Exactly:
The reason for this was a survey by Ipsos, in which the AfD is the strongest party nationwide for the first time with 25 percent, ahead of the CDU/CSU … .
It was alarming that “the AfD, which in some quarters is considered to be securely on the extreme right”, was ahead of the CDU/CSU parties in an election poll for the first time, stated Florian Streibl, parliamentary group leader in the Bavarian state parliament.
I partly blame Trump for this development. When he was elected, it provided a much-needed morale boost to nationalist parties in Europe. The establishment wasn’t beaten by a long shot, but it had taken a hit. But then suddenly, Trump went after the USA’s allies. Not only did Trump affront some of his European supporters, he also gave the establishment all the reasons it needed to double down on its destructive policy and persecution of its enemies. Anything even vaguely suspected of having ties to Trump, no matter how far-fetched the assumption, was now fair game. No, what happened in France and might happen in Germany is nothing new. But the morale boost is now the establishment’s.
13 comments
There was certainly an element of the “kiss of death” from Trump and his people in the AfD’s case. I believe that the core EU countires in particular will seek to “fortify democracy” while ramping up the besieged fortress syndrome as the current crisis is heading towards a bad end as Americans are seeking ways to bail from the trouble in Ukraine, while strip mining their outer empire in Europe to further stabilize the core.
The silver lining is that court bans notwistanding, you can still play for the win as long as you maintain the cadres and influence among the dissatisfied. In the end, law is but a fence, according to the Chinese proverb. Only good for keeping the cattle in place while tigers and rats find ways to cross it.
It’s all kinds of special to see supposed ideological opposites playing kissyface to shut out real competition.
Does anyone currently in Germany know if anyone is seriously trying to refute, expose the 6 Million Gassed Js Hoax/Fundamentalist Religious Myth same as the Parting of the Red Sea in the J’s Old Testament Book of Exodus?
Or, is anyone currently in the USA/Canada/North America seriously working to refute, expose counter act the guilt tripping on us over this wildly exaggerated, fabricated War Crime – the 6 Million Gassed sacred Js?
We have an excellent high quality color magazine that we feel is very good. Is anyone currently selling, marketing revisionist magazines in the USA?
I wish we could attach Jpg images to show you the cover. E-mail if interested.
I am so sick of hearing about the holobunga holycost industry. norm finkelstein, author of The Holocaust Industry, said in an interview that the jews openly brag and laugh about running amerika and jimmy dore looked like he was about to terrorshit his pants. That repulsively privileged sleaze randy fine is another one. It’s shocking how the desk was able to hide his fat ass. Nick Dipaolo said about similarly planet-sized chris christie that he looks like the equator with pants.
Meanwhile, newest polls show the AfD in first placeat 25 percent, which is probably why the effort to ban it will now intensify and likely succeed, especially in light of Marie Le Pen’s recent conviction.
Why? They suck zionist, Jewish cock just like the rest of them? People are waking up to this dog and pony show around the world, be it in Trumpland or Deutschland.
Even the BSW wants to ban the AfD? What was their rationale?
I suppose because the BSW comes from the left and wanted to appeal to the left, but all it did was alienate everybody. For hardline leftist, Sahra Wagenknecht was already a no-no, because of – I kid you not – her evil far right opinions. AfD voters were in general very well disposed toward Wagenknecht until she called for the ban. The conservatives on the fence went with the CDU/CSU after all. So now the BSW is irrelevant. Instant karma.
The main reason, though, is because the AfD is competition, plain and simple. The Freie Wähler were against a ban until the AfD hit the 25% mark. Then all of a sudden, in Hubert Aiwanger‘s own words, it became too powerful and had to be stopped.
I figured they wouldn’t like her because she’s against unchecked mass immigration, and nothing else she could do would change that, but did she give a reason for piling on against AfD? Was it the whole remigration thing, as in “stopping mass immigration like we BSW want to do is good, but actually sending migrants back home is bad and evil”?
It seems internally inconsistent. Mass migration is bad because of the effects of the migrants, so if stopping mass migration is good (because the effects have been bad), then removing the migrants causing those bad effects should also be good, no? Unless you think mass migration has been great, and it’s just now turning negative, so you should only stop it but not send anyone home…
I don’t recall her giving a reason, other than the “we don’t cooperate with Nazis” spiel.
We all know the immigration debate is illogical to an extreme. When my ultra-leftist colleague suddenly turned big capitalist – “We need even more immigration because it’s good for the economy!” – I knew we had entered the Twilight Zone. 😉 Sahra Wagenknecht has a bit of a conflict of interests going on in that regard, since some of her voters and even some of the founding members of her party are immigrants. So…
Maybe it’s just to be contrary. I sometimes think a lot of people, be they politicians or the average guy, take a position that they know will infuriate those “on the right”. No matter if it hurts their country or even themselves personally, at least they’ve pissed off those evil right-wingers. It’s childish. It’s infantile. We are in dire need of adults in decision-making positions.
In Finland the right-wing populist political party, Perussuomalaiset (Finns Party or True Finns), is even part of the coalition government, but just in the recent elections it lost some credibility among voters. The point is that things generally don’t change much unless a storm breaks out in the form of war or some other equivalent crisis.
I’ll say it again (and again …): our race is finished unless it radically changes course. But in the normal course of things, it won’t. By the time a sufficient number of whites have finally (finally!) awakened to the dire threat each faces as an individual with nowhere left to run, it will be too late. Every significant white nation will have become “white-minoritized” (any remaining smaller white-majority nations can be easily mopped up via larger-nation-coerced swamping, though it will be called “refugee resettlement” not “white genocide”, of course).
The still, and more than ever before, only realistic path forward is prowhite ingathering. Racially committed whites must ingather, first inside their own nations, with a view not only to protecting themselves from diversitist harassment, but also to increasing the possibility of successful future ethnostatist secession; and later, with perhaps some doing so from the beginning, into one or a few sovereign and electorally conquerable nations. Prowhites could take over a bunch of sovereign European countries, and not only Iceland; they could conquer Australia or New Zealand; Uruguay or maybe even Argentina (definitely Southern Brazil); carve out a free state from South Africa; maybe even take Canada, with a large enough migration. We could also take over a bunch of contiguous US states.
Otherwise, the only option is “internal secession” or “secession of minds and families”. Can whites function as the new “Jews”, surviving genetically intact as a powerless minority through centuries of racial oppression until times somehow become propitious for the creation of our own White Zion? This is possible but unlikely, imo. Without territorial sovereignty and defense, I believe our race will go extinct, probably more by miscegenation than extermination (though the latter will soon become an omnipresent possibility).
What fools our race is, to give away the world that was ours!
It will take a lot more than voting for the AfD for that to happen. I don’t blame people for not trusting a Russian-backed, lesbian-miscegenator-led party considering what’s happening in Ukraine.
Jettison the “far-right” image and make immigration your only radical issue.
Denmark has proven that Social Democrats can do what populists only dream of with little opposition.
For Europe, I c0mpletely agree, and have been calling for such for a long time. What most European nations (at least the ones under major Replacist assault) need is a basically centrist party – wherever the ideological ‘center’ is in each country (nb: far to the Left of where I am) – which, however, is super-hardline on immigration alone. IOWs, everything is relative, contingent and negotiable except halting (and reversing) replacement, which should be the main focus of the party. There’s no need to get bogged down wrt other issues; after all, there won’t be any future debate over other issues if Replacement isn’t halted.
But for the US, I don’t think a single-issue anti-immigration party would work (although restriction must henceforth be a major part of each quadrennial GOP platform).
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.