Interesting Times in Bavaria

The German – well OK, Bavarian – centre right party is in all sorts of trouble right now. They currently have 9 sitting Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), including some big hitters in the Parliament like Inigo Friedrich. Due to a change in the way that the European Parliament election’s are being held in Germany, they stand to lose all 9, despite still picking up over 40% in their home, and Germany’s most populous Land, Bavaria. This time they have to get over 5% of the whole of Germany’s vote.

Of course this means that their sister (and have you ever seen sisters together, it can get pretty brutal at times) party, the CDU, will be the only one holding the flame of Christian Democracy in Germany, and they quite like that.

Add to that the spectre of Libertas Germany standing possibly with Count von Stauffenberg (former CSU federal MP – and a chap with a resonant name) at top of the list and their is massive pressure on the old party of Bavaria.

So what do they do? First, Edmund Stoiber suggests that he will ride to the flailing party’s rescue by sitting at the top of their Euro list. Now, we hear that current party leader, Horst Seehofer has been talking referenda. No not on the Lisbon Treaty – though that would cook Libertas’s goose in the Land – but over Turkish entry into the European Union.

Now everybody knows that Chancellor Merkel and the CSU see eye to eye on their not wanting Turkey through the portals of the Berlaymont (Germany would lose its position of country with most weight – and would have to pay for the privilege), but the word referendum is a dangerous one in German politics. Particularly in the light of the deliberations of the Constitutional Court.

Interesting times, indeed, in Bavaria.


In the preceding comment reference was made to a citation of mine.  It is important to note that the citation is incomplete, and that a crucial part of the sentence was...left out. The part that was left out is: "... I do not object to being called a Belgian IN THE CONTEXT OF AN INTERNATIONAL  BLOG". 

People who willfully or purposefully misquote generally are dishonest. And, needless to say, my "true identity" is not in any way threathened by being called a "Belgian" in the stated  context. 


Belgium & France

Marcfrans: "I have no sympathy for the Belgian state, and indeed argue for Flemish independence from that state, but I do not object to being called a "Belgian"

A few differences between France and Belgium: There is no language called "Belgian", and not every one would agree there is such a thing as "Belgian nationality". Belgium is a federal state made up of mainly two different groups. Each group has its own institutions working either in French or in Dutch/Flemish.

In "France", a large part of the country has always spoken the French language. But the part of Flanders which is in the Northern tip of France, against the border with Belgium, used to speak Flemish. People there are ethnically Flemish, and I suppose many of them in the older generation still speak Flemish. But not the young, because as far as the French administration is concerned, no one should be Flemish and no one should speak Dutch in France. The job of the French administration is to kill any real identity. I think if you tell Flemish people they are French, you are denying their right to their true identity. By contrast, being called Belgian is not necessarily an attack against your identity.

Poor comment

For a person with your ego, the comment is a disillusion. If you imagine with the word 'segregation' the separation of convicted criminals from the rest of society, you have an extreme narrow (and wrong) understanding of that notion. Anyway, I like to know, with all your empirical evidence/experience, how many 'law-abiding' people there are and what are the limiars of trespassing. But possibly for you is enough to look in one's eye to determine the 'criminal'.
The invasion/occupation in Paris you may note in August, when you have to speak English.
Your link between 'individual evaluation' and 'moral' has no nexus, please explain.
“The word "crazy" is used in the sense of moral degeneracy.” Which philosophy does support that??

WB (3)

The woolly Belgian seems to have attracted the attention of three shades of intolerant authoritarians at the same time: the woolly-and-naive left (Kappert), the racist right (Armor), and the lunatic-outerplanetary right (Monarchist).  That is a badge of honor. 

Some corrections are in order.

First, in his Breton-redoubt, what does Armor's red-colored EU passport say? It says "Republique Francaise".  Therefore, for most practical purposes, he is a Frenchman, and his absurd hatred for the French State cannot change that (for the moment).  One cannot be expected to use commonly-understood terms, like the word "Frenchman", in any language, and be expected to take-into account the individual feelings of the person in question.  I have no sympathy for the Belgian state, and indeed argue for Flemish independence from that state, but I do not object to being called a "Belgian" (crazy or otherwise) in the international context of a blog. The reason?  Because, meaningful use of language is not about my person, or any other person, but about clarity (understanding) for the reader or listener.

Second, indeed the R word is much misused, and should be used only sparingly.  I yield to no one in my opposition to its abusive manipulation, in law and jurisprudence, by contemporary European authorities in undermining freedom of speech (which does not really exist outside the 'west').  But this does not mean that the term "racism" cannot be meaningfully and correctly employed.  On this blog, there is ample evidence that Armor is prepared to judge INDIVIDUALS on the basis of race-based (physical) considerations and not on more principled human considerations.

Third, there is no evidence whatsoever of the woolly Belgian "asking for help".  On the contrary, he called for "engagement" between the woolly left and the racist right.  Anybody with a sense of history (including knowledge of the Hitler-Stalin pact) knows that such an alliance (against tolerant democrats) can only be temporary.  And the reason is that they are both made from the same unprincipled 'cloth'. 

@ WB

WB: The woolly Belgian seems to have attracted the attention of blah blah blah...

The only way you have attracted my attention is by calling me a racist.

WB: I have no sympathy for the Belgian state, and indeed argue for Flemish independence from that state

You must have been arguing in Belgian on the other half of the site. I have never seen you argue in English for Flemish independence or against race-replacement.

WB: blah blah blah...

blah blah !

not selective (2)

Hey, Editrix, are you taking all this in? Stick around 'cos it gets better and trust me, you'll get enough material on this character to fill your blog pages 'til your fingers bleed. 

It's what Darwin was searchin' for.

WB (2)

@ Armor


Kappert, FIGHT?


Now I know your really DO have a sense of humour 'cause you can NOT be serious!

You're on your own pal

'crazy' Frenchman or German? Or both?*

Perhaps the woolly left and the racist right should engage each other instead of miscaricaturising a sensible 'Belgian'.   Surely, after kappert's latest woolly posting, there is much for Armor to 'work with'.  For example:

-- Kappert claims to be against "any form of segregation".  How long does he think to survive in a society in which criminals are no longer "segregated" from law-abiding people? 

- Kappert is against any form of "occupation"?  When Armor visits Parisian suburbs and encounters few native Frenchmen, he might be forgiven for seeing the distinction between "occupation" and "invasion" as purely 'academic'.

And the claim for being anti-"arrogance" is laughable on its face.  But Kappert's statement "I do not evaluate individuals" takes the cake. C'est le comble!  On that the woolly left and the racist right appear to be in total agreement.  But, it is also indicative of the death of human morality and a return to the jungle.   

* The word "crazy" is used in the sense of moral degeneracy.

Woolly Belgian

WB: 'crazy' Frenchman or German? Or both?*

I'm not French.

WB: the woolly left and the racist right
* The word "crazy" is used in the sense of moral degeneracy.

Systematic use of the R word causes degeneration of intellectual debate.

WB: Surely, after kappert's latest woolly posting, there is much for Armor to 'work with'

Come on Kappert, keep fighting the Woolly Belgian !
He asked for help. That means you are nearing victory.

CB (2): Brittany, the new Newfoundland?

@ marcfrans


Before you respond angrily to Armor's latest post, you at least gotta give him SOME credit for his newfound sense of humor. Afterall, this is the same Armor who often badmouths the Eskimo in his debates with you on race-replacement yet, irony of ironies, he now appears to have discovered his own  newfound inner-inu-wit.

Please, be 'gentile' with him.


On a 'Leiter' Note

@ Capo'




PS. I can just imagine the many naturalized American citizens of 'Kappertian' extraction reading your comments and asking the question, Heliand? Heli and who?



Dealing with "Our" Past



"Germans can't live without a totalitarian concept."

Maybe it's the German in me, but it seems to me that living with a totalitarian concept is a requirement of human consciousness, no matter how rudimentary, benevolent or malevolent.

 You stated:

 "There IS, however, a tiny wee little difference between Germany and the other European nations: Different from Germany, no WWII and no Holocaust went out from their countries."

Really? The Soviet Union had nothing to do with the outbreak of WWII? Japan, may not ethnically qualify as European, but 'technically' one would have to say it qualified as European; so Japan had no role in rolling out WWII in history?

Editrix, German History, and history in general, is much more vibrant and enjoyable than the Prussian goose step that you see marching along.

After all, besides Germany's ultimate triumph in WWII with the election of Benedict XVI, isn't it possible to point to some small tribal victories during the war? Maybe our Teutonic tribal authority can focus on the Angles-Saxons-Jutes activities during the war?

My own understanding of the problem Germans often have in understanding the 'German Problem' in history is that they need to go back to the Teutonic Woods and really get acquainted with their roots. Recommended reading: "Heliand" Recommended Music: Anybody, but Wagner!

The Franks? Frankly speaking, they are something else all together, ask any Frenchman:)

"Cleaning up"

Yes, Traveller, we hope that the Brussels Journal remains a bastion of free speech.  I have often argued this point before, and I will do so again.  The real distinction (the one that really matters) in the world is not between 'reds' and 'browns', or between 'races', or between religions, or parties, etc...but between democrats and nondemocrats or, if you will, between those who can tolerate freedom of speech (and opinion) and those who cannot.  All the rest, all that is important and that allows for real 'progress' in human freedom and knowledge, follows from that distinction. With his/her comment that TBJ should "clean up" the comments section, 'The Editrix' has revealed his/her true colors as an intolerant nondemocrat.

There is no doubt that Kappert had some point in implying that nazis and nazi-sympathisers did not disappear overnight from the scene in Germany after ww2.  How could they?  And Traveller has provided a rational response to that and a relevant context.

Kappert's point is a moot one, i.e. deprived of practical significance.  Obsession with the past can become an obstacle for the survival of human freedom in the future.  His SELECTIVE condemnation of some past 'brown' foms of totalitarianism and his blindness to CONTEMPORARY forms of totalitarianism, are indicative of his moral relativism and of dishonesty.  His recurrent behavior of refusing to directly answer very specific questions makes any discussion with him fruitless.

Yes, "tribal thinking linked to power" can be a deadly mixture.  But so can "ideological thinking linked to power" be.  Leftist ideology can be equally 'tribal' in its consequences, by which I mean that it can equally be incapable of judging people as INDIVIVIDUALS first, and holding them accountable for their individual (mis)behavior.  That means that there are many ways of interpreting 'tribe', and the 'woolly' Kappertian way is no less tribal than the 'racist' Armorian way.     

Guilt by association by mr marcfrans

The real distinction among people is between monarchist and non-monarchists (Nazis, fascists, democrats, communists, anarchists). There is no crucial difference among the latter group and even if there is a difference all non-monarchist are scumbags anyway (guilt by association).

not selective

On marcfrans' remark on my 'selective condemnation', I like to remind that I condemn any form of totalitarism and segregation, either Hitler or Stalin, Empire or 'splendid isolation', religious or sexual, occupation or racist/social arrogance. Different to marcfrans, I do not evaluate 'individuals' but rather impacts on society. Kant, Herder and Freud influenced our society with the experienced results in the 20th century.

Crazy Belgian

CB: "The real distinction = between democrats and nondemocrats"

No! Here is the distinction that matters between people: ???

CB: " the 'racist' Armorian way. "

On another thread, you said you did not approve of mass immigration. If that was true, you would complain that the race replacement policy in Belgium is a racist policy. Instead, you keep calling me a racist! That's why the population replacement is allowed to proceed. Most people are appalled by the forced policy of race-replacement, but they are afraid to be called racists by people like you if they protest.

@ Armor

Having stumbled over your last comment I have immediately taken an aspirine after having caught migraine by trying to figure out your sentences. Man, you really twist things around in your convoluted phrasing.
Try to be a little bit clearer please, I am sure you were trying to say something but I couldn't figure it out yet.

@ traveller

I know why you are doing it and I commend you for it. Let's face it, somebody had to. Moreover, I may well be a peddler of " uneducated drivel" but it's MY drivel and I'm choosy with whom I 'driv', so I'm more than happy to see you deal with this issue on behalf of the rest of us who either can't or won't.

Taking the pith

@ traveller


I'm confident  you will agree with me when I say that in the past, we have all read and enjoyed any number of lengthy and erudite posts by marcfrans, for example, only to see that effort shamelessly distorted, ridiculed or otherwise redacted by a follow up commentator who couldn't be trusted to string a daisy chain together, let alone a coherent sentence and never ONCE have I seen him employ the (Dom)Editrix line of argument in his follow up response. So, please, let's have no more lectures by marcfrans wannabes about the values of the "more than two sentence" method of debate and 'argumentation' over that of the pithy and the pissed.


(Disambiguation: see American def.

On a blogsite like ours there is surely room for both.

@ Atlanticist911

Basically you are right my friend, but I am worried when so-called intellectuals start pontificating about the merits and demerits of a people without any critical counter-voice.
In our times the truth is a rare commodity and most people don't have the bagage/experience/field knowledge to see the falsehoods.
That's why I react, to give a nuance to those pontifications.
This lady, I suppose she is, has a definite good streak but is totally brainwashed against the history of her own country. Who is going to tell rhe non-Germans on this blog that it isn't so? Kappert?

That's the only reason I am doing it.

While America Slept ;-)

Leave it  to a German to start another European brouhaha. As an American with German ancestry, (Alsace & Bavaria,) Editrix thank you for reminding my DNA why it left. Your take on German history explains why we get our a.. kicked so often.


At least there was one kid who grew up in Bavaria during WWII who didn't take such drivel seriously.

Thank you, Benedict XVI for showing your fellow 'Germans' that 'defeat' can also be used for kicking, or crushing your opponent's head in, not just running away.


"Thank you, Benedict XVI for showing your fellow 'Germans' that 'defeat' can also be used for kicking, or crushing your opponent's head in, not just running away."

Amen to that!

Have you signed the petition?

We - the undersigned - defend you, our shepherd, against the unbridled attacks in the media. These attacks are inappropriate and reflect neither the truth nor a decent way for humans to interrelate. We are people of good will, committed Catholic laity, clergy and priests. By our signatures we explicitly declare our solidarity with Your Holiness!

Thank you kappert...

I never thought I'd live to hear myself say that, kappert, so please, please, please, don't stop there. I'd like to read a recapitulation, the complete repertoire  of you beliefs, perhaps commencing with your views on (neo) nazism, the absence of any difference between what is right or wrong, what is good and what is evil and perhaps finishing with a brief comment on how and why, in a (kappertian) world devoid of anything even remotely resembling 'evil', the concept of the 'Just War' is so, well, evil. Then and only then could I (maybe) expect any future teutonic tantrums to be directed at you and not me. 

The stage is all yours.


The 'stage' is our brain. Policy, the co-ordination of a society, is made by (a group of) leaders, from your household to your city to your country. The mutual help, which is basic in humanity, is often overcome by singular interests contrary to the well-being of the whole society. These interests use marketing strategies to reach their goal: evoking common beliefs, their strength and their difference towards others. Thus, a 'strong leader' may influence the society, making it convincing and 'scientifically' approved, implementing a society of believers in segregation and, the here-discussed Übermensch theory, only possible with the contributions of Kant, Herder and Freud (Nietzsche really had little part in it). Foreseeing a determinant future (Kant), in pure national boundaries (Herder), the conviction that science investigated correctly our brain (Freud) and thus can be controlled and manipulated, were essential parts of the philosophy which conducted to the human disaster manifested in Nazi-Germany.

post-war nazism

It is not about having positive or negative 'feelings', as that belongs greatly on personnel experiences. The point is that the origin and genesis of the totalitarian system we know as 'Nationalsozialismus' was appreachated in many European countries and even in the USA in the first half of the 20th century. The end of Hitler-Germany did not abolish this thinking and, in my opinion, it is still lurking in politics and society. Tribal thinking linked to power is always a deadly mixture.

Homework (2)

If you consider my posts " uneducated drivel" that's fine by me. You are entitled to your opinion(s) and I respect you for your honesty. Freedom of speech, thought, expression etc.. And, don't worry, I have no intention of exposing you to any further "drivel" after this, my final comment on the matter. Yes, I am famliar with the google search facility and no I won't be using it for the purpose you suggest because I don't need to, because I already know the answer. My comments addressed to kappert were set in the context of our ongoing ideological feud, but you're not interested in hearing (i.e. reading) more about that subject  so  I  shall detain you no longer. Goodbye.

"My comments addressed to

"My comments addressed to kappert were set in the context of our ongoing ideological feud, but you're not interested in hearing (i.e. reading) more about that subject..."

Indeed not any more as you are in my points.



"I am unaware of any earlier argy-bargy between kappert and Atlanticist911 elswhere...".


And I find that statement somewhat surprising coming from someone who has been a BJ member for the past 2 years 44 weeks but let's not quibble about that.

And to the same person (or anybody else for that matter0 who would go on to conclude with the statement, " I don't want to be any part of it", my 'simpleminded' response is simple, DON'T!

However, should anybody decide that they WOULD like to be "apart of it", I [SERIOUSLY] recommend that they first do their homework with regard to kappert's previous (general) statements and positions of moral relativism before taking any further potshots at me.


PS Thanks, traveller..



"And I find that statement somewhat surprising coming from someone who has been a BJ member for the past 2 years 44 weeks but let's not quibble about that."

Oh yes, lets! You obviously didn't bother to check how many (or rather how few) comments I delivered during that period of time. Oh yes! I lurked all that time breathlessly following your (plural) uneducated drivel to then suddenly pipe up, pretending I had never seen it.

Do you have to say anything about the CONTENT of my comment as well or are you really unable to perform a Google search, as you are obviously unable to klick on the "Track" button in a member's personal profile?

"Kappert, the Jerry Fletcher

"Kappert, the Jerry Fletcher of the BJ, sees nazis everywhere. But even supposing that some of his conspiracy theories are true..."

I am unaware of any earlier argy-bargy between kappert and Atlanticist911 elsewhere and, frankly, I don't want any part in it, but to call what the former posted a "conspiracy theory" on the strength of that very comment, is... let me call it "simpleminded" to avoid any unnecessary bitingness. To say that the CSU (and the FDP and to a lesser extent the CDU) used to be a collecting pit for old Nazis post-WWII is simply the truth. I recommend that Atlanticist911 performs a Google search or two. It is not all that difficult and will prove kappert right.

@ The Editrix

The sparring of Atlanticist vs Kappert has ideological grounds from a long time ago.
Let me remind you that the majority in Germany were nazis and that Vichy France was nazi, also a majority in France. Mitterand, the later president was a Vichy member.
What exactly do you want these countries and their people to do? Commit suicide?
Those populations tried to survive under a dictatorship and I don't see any of our so called liberals today acting any different under a dictatorship, on the contrary they already accept the dictatorship of the Political Correct uni-thought. We already are admonished that free speech is dangerous and everybody on the left and in the Establishment applauds. That's how "Kristallnacht" started.

How to deal with one's past

"Let me remind you that the majority in Germany were nazis and that Vichy France was nazi, also a majority in France. Mitterand, the later president was a Vichy member."

Yes and -- in the context of this discussion -- so?

"What exactly do you want these countries and their people to do? Commit suicide?"

I, as a German, will not tell other people what to do about and how to see their own past. There IS, however, a tiny wee little difference between Germany and the other European nations: Different from Germany, no WWII and no Holocaust went out from their countries. I do, however, react a tiny wee bit irritated if a foreigner, like you, tells me how *I* have to see OUR past.

"Those populations tried to survive under a dictatorship..."

I have to go back a long way to remember an equally callous statement of relativism and opportunism. And here I was, thinking that this is a conservative forum.

"... and I don't see any of our so called liberals today acting any different under a dictatorship, on the contrary they already accept the dictatorship of the Political Correct uni-thought."

Oh no! They are just trying to survive under a dictatorship, didn't you know?

"We already are admonished that free speech is dangerous and everybody on the left and in the Establishment applauds. That's how "Kristallnacht" started."

YOU, Sir, have NO IDEA how "Kristallnacht" started.

I will, however, throw in some private lesson in German history and sociology. Germans as a people, with a few precious exceptions thrown in, did NOT, as cou put it "try to survive under a dictatorship". They gladly supported it, as Germans in the former GDR are still whining about the end of the second German dictatorship. And don't you dare telling me it ain't so because I am living among them for more than two years now. Germans can't live without a totalitarian concept. That is why we don't have anything that resembles even faintly a conservative political movement. WHAT we have are brown-painted Socialists, Sacred-Heart Socialists, green-over-brown-painted Socialists, Communists and a tiny, hapless "liberal" party that used to be a receptacle for old Nazis after '45 and which has ousted itself from serious politics by their self-consciously cultivated image of a "fun party" under its openly gay leader. The staple between all of them is the hatred of America and Jews, which the not-brown-painted ilk insist to call "anti-Zionism" because they are such despicable hypocrites. All of them have NOTHING in common with parties like Vlaams Belang, Partij voor de Vrijheid or BNP.

The support for even the worst Muslim thugs is based on that very affinity, the mutual totalitarian mindset. Wasn't Jörg Haider rubbing shoulders with Bubba Saddam? Didn't a contractor, who is a member of the brown-over-red painted party NPD, build the gigantic mosque in Duisburg-Marxsloh? Hey! It worked pretty well between Hitler and the Mufti already, so why not now?

"Liberalism", Sir, is the LAST THING that has anything to do with it.

That was all. You may quote me.

@ The Editrix

Just to be fair, my comment about 2 elements of your reaction:
1) Germans lived willingly under the Hitler dictatorship.
The German people lived all of, what?, 10 years in a turbulent "democracy" In the 1920's. All the time before and after they were ruled by "Ordnung muss sein".
They had no clue about democracy.
The nazi's were the inventors of modern propaganda, they were relentless.
Hitler was the saviour of a country with a starving population and a financial nightmare. The people were extremely grateful and they wanted to be proud again after the disasters of WW1. The manipulation of the German masses, not as educated as our idiot intellectuals of today, was done by masters of the trade. Under those circumstances the reaction of the people was predictable.

2) GDR

This is the same reaction as in the old Soviet Union, no matter if they worked or not, they always got their basics, a dirty smelling appartment, schnapps and bread.
No worries if you didn't mind the squallor, no working and basically living like idiots.
Yes uneducated people like that everywhere in the world. People love being told what to do and following rules if it means security of "shelter and bread".
This is not basically German but everywhere where socialism and communism ruled. If you think this is a German thing, travel to Russia.
There were 40, yes forty, instances of attacks on Hitler, none succeeded. This is more than attacks against Stalin or Mao, the same brutal dictators.
I don't know your age but please talk to the prople who lived that period. I was born during the war and my parents worked for the British Intelligence service after the war to weed out nazi's, they loved the German people and their pride during hardship.
There is some good in the German people left.

@ Editrix

Having lived in Germany, Dusseldorf and Soest, myself as a businessman, and having spent years travelling to Hamburg every month, I could be termed as not entirely ignorant about Germany.
Having fought with the "German Industrie Verband" AND with the German "Gewerkschaften", I have some experience.
Now your hatred for Germany is typical and I met a lot of "intellectuals" like you. I admit, seriously, that I have more negative feelings about Germany than positive, but I don't hate them.
I know exactly the German mentality and I can exactly predict the German reaction, generally speaking, to certain events or expressions.
Although I have very bad experiences with Germans I can still respect them for what they are, my personal feelings not clouding my judgement.
Therefor, my dear, when you judge your compatriots like you do you are not only unfair towards the people from the 1930's, you are completely ignorant of that period.
My best German friend was a German Jewish businessman who, as a baby of 2 years old was transported to Dachau with his whole family. He was the only survivor and was taken in by a German family after the war. He loved Germany and was a very successful businessman until his death. He had every reason for hating Germany blindly, he didn't.

Don't go for general statements my dear, go for facts please.

Yes, the "Jewish friend" bit

Yes, the "Jewish friend" bit was bound to come.

"Now your hatred for Germany is typical and I met a lot of "intellectuals" like you."

But yes of course. And they are? Name two.

You ass-ume that I hate Germany because I criticize it. I could mention countless wonderful things about Germany and German culture, Sankt Patroklus in Soest being one of them, but it is sadly not germane to the topic we are discussing here. People like you are unable to detach their sentiments, prejudices and opinions from facts. That said, you have not addressed, let alone refuted, even one of the points I made, just stated that you somehow don't like them. That is not enough.

To be honest, I consider talking to people who dub a person "intellectual" (derogatorily in quotes) because they can hang on to a stringent argument over more than two sentences or because they are able to argue on a certain level of abstraction and don't see their own sentiments as the navel of the world, a waste of time. Brussels Journal ought to clean up their comment section.


@ The Editrix

The only wonderful thing you found about Germany is from the past. The very far past. You could also mention the "DOM" from Koeln, not to bad either.
Your list of covered "brown" grievances is much too long to be accidental, that's why I concluded you hated Germany.
Now you already started advising TBJ to "clean" their comment section. Ye Gods, don't you "righteous" people never learn?
My Jewish friend did exist and of course doesn't fit into your "brown"bashing of everybody you don't agree with.
The spirit I liked in Germany was the fact that neither the German government nor the German companies nor the German people left their own people in the "shit" when they were in difficulties abroad. I knew 2 of such cases and the whole society helped them, government first.
We as Flemish belgians couldn't even dream of that kind of support.
Of course you would say that this is a sign of "brown" nationalism.
You are asking why I don't answer your concrete arguments? Simple, I didn't find any except for the "brown"bashing of everybody.
Yes this is a conservative blog, but it is also a bastion of free speech.

@ 'Jerry' from the proud son of a British 'Tommy'

NOT so. My own father spent  6 years of his life fighting those nazi bastards and losing his younger brother in the process so that, among other things, spineless, cloth-eared clowns like you might live to ridicule and gloat. But if I was "hopping around" as you claim, I would have had the perfect  Master/ Mistress in you.


Sorry: Jerry Fletcher Hollywood, Watts, Hobsbawn, Hitchens, 'change the topic'? You are hopping around, trying to avoid the acknowledgement that the crimes of WWII are largely accepted by the post-war democracies (see post-war careers), simply because the nazi-ideology is a consequent line in the thought of protestant technocrats. The opposition of science and religions, so often discussed in this blog, lead (so far) ultimately to the übermensch-ideology, conceived by 'thinkers' overwhelmed by the progress of science. Still, many countries feel an instant superiority towards others, means, the mentioned ideology in still working in the minds.

'Watt' Conspiracy (4) : tribe and diatribe

Without wishing to reduce my mini-debate with Kappert (XX ?) to one equating to something along the lines of 'Hobsbawn's Choice', with regard to the nazis vs commies, I believe most rational people would be prepared to listen and learn from a person who knows.



War Starts (2)

Fellow BJ'ers will note: Not satisfied with avoiding offering any substantive responses  to my questions on 'WATT', Kappert now wishes to change the topic of discussion to one concerning the chromosone Y.  If there's a link here, I'm missing it!

'Watt' Conspiracy (2)

"It is a given fact that nazis reached up to decisive positions in Europe after WWII".


It is also a "given fact" that Communists, Trotskyites, (and to a far lesser degree) Maoists and their ilk achieved similar successes, but I don't see you complaining about that. Perhaps this should be considered by (Occidental/ accidental) taoists as the political 'yin' balancing out the political 'yang'. Then again, maybe not.


NB That was not a question it was a statement, but you are still free to pass comment. (In case you hadn't noticed).

Your comment is an

Your comment is an enlightenment. Putting on the same level nazis, commies, trotzkis, maoists (don't forget sindicalists, uuhaa) you very much aline in the 'general forgiveness' towards nazis. They were welcome, voted and adored and nothing tells us that this history will not repeat itself in this fractured tribal Europe, as slave labour, human traficking and ethnic cleansing stand high on the wishing list of some political entrepreneurs.

what conspiracy

It has nothing to do with conspiracy. It is a given fact that nazis reached up to decisive positions in Europe after WWII. Kiesinger was German chancellor, Waldheim Austrian president and UNO chairman, von Braun catapulted Americans to the moon, Quandt and Krupp continue to be the richest families in Germany - they are forgiven a long time ago! Where do you detect conspiracies?

Bavaria is the biggest Bundesland by area, not by population...

...and the CSU is hardly a centre right party by any international standard. They are Sacré-Cœur Socialists, centre, at best.

Good try and I wish them well, but I am afraid any political effort with "libertas" in its name will, in Germany, suffer the fate of a stillborn child. Germans just don't understand the concept.


Former Nazi-Parteimitglieder making career in the CSU:
Walter Becher, Hermann Höcherl, Friedrich Kempfler, Franz Krapf, Franz Nüßlein, Alfred Seidl, Siegfried Zoglmann: all these Nazis were Deputies, Diplomats or at least MdB for the Federal Republic of Germany. Some got highest positions at NATO.
(ps: the leader of Reiter-SS and NSKK later married the Dutch princess Juliana, so not only in both Germanys the Nazies proceed their career!)