striped toothpaste

That was just banter! I have nothing against the French. Which doesn't mean one should overlook neither historical events and their consequences, nor cultural implications of any sort. Okay, I see now where you are coming from. Let's talk about it! Before that, let me tell you, I like how you are going about this. Your conduct, I mean. You reply steadfastly, you take punches in stride, you dish out without hesitation and you structure your writing. I like all of this. I also like that you are obviously, like me, a complete history buff, which is nice, because that way we can give the discussion a spin towards that side of things. Primarily, I see two things here, before all the other stuff you mentioned, to which we will hopefully can come back to later on. First, this year's elections and second the immigration crisis. I'll take the elections first because it is the shorter topic, the fastest way to a first stake in the grounds of our ruling over the subject matter at hand. Now, regarding the elections, since we wanted to deal with them in a history-buffonery way, let us take a look at a few key concepts of the parliamentary system we currently have in Germany. As you should know, but weren't told in the public school system, the modern governmental system, which now basically rules the world, was enabled first in England. I already hinted at the Magna Charta and via various ways these developments ultimately lead to the dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell in the 17th century. When the English beheaded their king and enacted legislation to do so, historic evidence was given that the times had changed. Compare the resolution of the English revolutionaries with the hesitations of Elizabeth the Great, who wasn't that fast to execute her competition. The big success that would inspire paramilitary and revolutionary forces throughout the world in subsequent centuries however, was the establishment of the U.S. of fucking A. the greatest country in Middle-earth ever. Uh-hem. Now, the parliamentary system of the U.S.A. was looked upon by many as the way to do it. For example, when the South Americans reached their independence, they looked upon the U.S.A. on how to devise their new governmental systems. One of these South American countries were the United Provinces of the River Plate, which would later dissolve into several countries: mainly Argentina, pertaining the capital Buenos Aires, and Uruguay with Montevideo as it's capital. Thus forming a country around the city who stood up to rival Buenos Aires in it's importance. Okay, now you can go play Civ… Still here? Well, the constitution of Uruguay, being formed after the one of the U.S.A., featured the office of a strong and potent president. This is a key-point. (To us it is obvious that U.S.-politics resolve very much around the P.O.T.U.S. and who holds this office…) For example in England, things were a bit different… Since we are having Germany and England here, let me say something about Football. The first ever FIFA World Cup was held in Uruguay in 1930, because the game was more developed in South America back then. The Uruguayans built a new stadium for that, named it after their constitution, to commemorate the centennial of Uruguay's first constitution. But these hundred years were also full of political struggle for Uruguay. When in the early 20th century the situation could be calmed down by José Batlle y Ordóñez, he proposed to change the system. Wickedpedia describes it like this: In other words: he saw a danger in the model with a strong president of the state to become a dictatorship. He also favoured the Swiss model over the American one to prevent such a decline into dictatorship. The most important link here was the first one to the article on law vs legislation. I hope I could bring this distinction to your attention. Furthermore, the distinction between a parliamentary system with a strong president on the one hand, and one with a less exposed governmental leader. We will need both these distinctions to understand the German situation. After your study, you could write a post which is clarifying to me, how we are going with this so far, and you can go play Civ already.

Well, then you already knew that the French are pricks. What is it, actually, that you are trying to do here? Your posts rise a wide range of interesting topics. Not all of them are necessarily tied to the German context. Let's talk about them. But first, let us clarify what we are trying to accomplish here. I am not really clear about that. What is the question behind your question?

Today I encountered this opinion piece on it: http://avc.com/2017/10/i-scam-yous/ via this blog post: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2017/10/money-for-nothing.html

As a German currently living in Germany, let me answer this in a direct fashion… (I'll try to be succint, since it is a lot you brought up.) > Germans are hardworking Compared to whom? Are you saying everybody else is lazy? I don't think so. What really is going on (and led to that stereotype), I think, is that a combination of very, very low corruption combined in all traditionally protestant countries led to a situation were hard work was worth it. But of course there is a lot more to say about that. > very tolerant of opinions (no, really) We have the same problems with political correctness as do all the other traditionally protestant countries… > and they are mostly social conservatives. I see this coming up on the net all the time. Complete hogwash. If at al, we are more degenerate than other European nations. Have you ever heard of the so-called Love Parade? Don't divide Germany into three parts. Specially not, if you say German history is one of your topics ;-) > "Guilt Culture" or Schuldkultur is a decent theory, but it is not nearly the whole story. If mean by this a special German version of white guilt, well of course, the indoctrinated masses are having it. Or what is it what you mean? > The simple fact is that there is no such thing as a German Culture. Wat? > Germany, as proclaimed after the Franco-Prussian war, is hardly 200 years old. I can see were you are coming from, but it is an absolute oversimplification that does you no good. > The German identity is based in language and in language alone. Not in geography, history, ethnicity, genetics, nor ideology (which is the real tragedy). If you don't speak a german dialect, you are not German anymore. Inversely, if you speak German, you are good to go. Not at all. Where are you getting these ideas from? Define the terms. What do you mean by identity? > Now, it must be noted that there is no such thing as a German Language. Were it not for the artificially standardised Hochdeutsch, someone from Lower Germany could not understand Upper Germans. In conclusion, there is no such thing as German Culture. So you cannot expect anyone to assimilate to something that does not exist. This is complete out-of-order. Again, let's discuss this further, where are you getting these things from? You sound as you felt prey to somebody of very low intellectual capability, who regurgitated some soundbites she didn't understand properly herself. > Germany was the first true authoritarian country in history, which can be explained by their militaristic heritage. This is just wrong on both accounts. Also, we don't have a particular militaristic heritage. > United Germany only came about due to the efforts of the Prussian Empire, which had their roots in the Military State of the Teutonic Knights. There was no Prussian Empire. The Kingdom of Prussia also included/inherited the Crusader state of the Teutonic Knights, if you will. The state of the Teutonic Order was not more militarized than other states of it's time. But again, let's talk. > The Prussian state does not have an army; The Prussian army has a state. Yeah, that was banter, like all good banter it had a grain of truth in it. Jesus Christ, if people take our jokes seriously, no wonder they think we don't have a sense of humor. "The martial style of the Prussian State was the reason they could unite all the German-speaking peoples of Europe. That's not true. Also they never did it. It was Hitler with his "Annexation" of Austria who did that and he could do it because both Prussia and Austria ceased to be super powers after World War I. > Prussia was the first state in the world to fully nationalise all the functions that the Church used to carry out traditionally: Schools, population census, healthcre, and of course, welfare. Effectively every country in the world that employs social programs finds their forerunner in Bismarck. That's somewhat true. > My point is that the German people have no concept of what the Anglophones call "freedom", since they haven't experienced it in generations. It is a more the other way around. The Anglo-Saxon history of "freedom" started with the Magna Charta in 1066 in England. Just kidding, that was 1215. And this Anglo-Saxon understanding of freedom is a very unique, special and glorious, hopefully victorious thing. German countries who went forth into freedom and bliss are the Netherlands and the Swiss. Of course, Switzerland is also partly francophone and Italian… > The ones who yearned for the freedoms they used to enjoy under the Holy Roman Empire have already left and settled the Midwest. We can talk about everything that is written in the Bible. If you have a sense of humour we can also talk about genetics and the Teutonic race. > If you are from the Anglosphere, you cannot use the word "freedom" or "Freiheit" in a conversation with a German and expect him to think of the same meaning as you do. That's true. That is true for every cultural element. For example you can't discuss really anything with a Frenchman, because they are pricks. And they don't have a sense of humour. > Germans do not place freedom in their value system as highly as some other peoples, as they value stability and security much more. The German form of sheep mentality is a peculiar one. Yes, we can talk about that, if you want. > Germans don't like politics, nor do they have time for it, since they much rather work. The number of people who engage in the political process by either voting or working in a political party is much higher in Germany than in the USA, percentage-wise. Also, Americans are lazy and don't know how to take a joke. > The average German couldn't care less whether or not they rake in half of his earnings as long as they do not prevent him from doing his job. Now I am feeling like I am the one lacking a sense of humour. This reads like satire. > The debate between Merkel (CDU) and Schultz (SPD) that happened on the 3rd of September spoke volumes about the attitute of the average German towards the political system. No it didn't. > The debate was watched by 20 million people on cable in Germany, which is a fourth of the country's population. In contrast, nearly half of the US population tuned in for the first The reasons for that are primarily that the debate is not really part of our political culture. It is something of relative recency and nobody takes it too serious. Also, the stakes weren't that high anyway, nobody expected anything to change and the candidates were seen as very weak anyway. > The debate resulted in a sharp downturn of about 5 points for both candidates in the opinion polls, but coincidentally also in the 10 point rise for the new nationalist AFD party. I would argue against that. ---- Look, this is already pretty crazy, I sincerely can't say whether you are trolling or a nine years old who wants to verify his homework for bible school in the Midwest. I love you, like I love all my Anarchist Brothers and Sisters in and out the Faith and I am very open to discussing Germany with you. Please try to bring up one point/topic after another, not everything at once. If you manage to deliver a discussion I can promise you I'll be here for you. I will do my best and try to be culturally sensitive and not be a prick to you. And no stupid jokes, if you want. How 's that?

I wouldn't know about Stefan's book, but are you searching for methods to increase one's self-esteem?

Not only crypto-currencies, but all emerging currencies are "hot" right now, IMHO. Why? Because the statists are running out of money, the West is broke. We are tanking, if not absolutely then financially at least. So, they try everything to rise taxation ect, etc --- to the point, and this is key, to make money inflexible and useless. Cashless society, for instance. But it will not work. Money is meant to increase practicality, not to make matters complicated. Think about how credit cards are there at a sweet spot: they are more convenient than cash, because you just have all your money with you at once. But they also introduce usability hassles like having to memorize a pin and whatnot. The more the establishment complicates money in order to collect and control, the higher alternative currencies will fly. It is even a question of historic proportion: will the state loose control of currency? This could IMHO very well happen.

In the end the degree stuff is just pretext to be able to say "No" to you. It's a matter of supply and demand. If demand is higher than supply, nobody cares whether you have a degree or not. If demand is low, they will invent all sorts of excuses to not to hire you. You have to find something where demand is high and increasing.

If you know in which movie Gene Wilder asks "do you like Sauerkraut and Kartoffeln?" please tell me about it! I once saw part of that movie on TV and would love to see it in the proper way. Yeah, and I am from Sauerkraut-Country and I like to eat Sauerkraut and I don't have to have it, there are other foods that I like even more. Dead cow over fire for instance. Anyway, I just wanted to add, I came to Stephan's show because I was researching about the game designer Molyneux and at that point Stephan was already popular enough to appear in the search engine results. And the rest is history, as they say. (Or soccer, if you are an American.) I hope you all are very, very well :-)

Kamenitza for the win!