Understanding Germans

[M.2]

I have German blood, I speak German, and I love German history, but I have a tough time getting explanations to what is going on with their country. I hope some are more enlightened than I am. Here is what I learned.

Stereotypes and truths
Germans are hardworking, very tolerant of opinions (no, really), and they are mostly social conservatives. However... Germans vary from state to state... it's a big country. For simplicity, you can categorise Germany into 3 cultures:
- North-West: protestant, radically liberal, selfish, socialist, globalist
- North-East: atheists, socially conservative, depressed, socialist, europhile
- South: catholic, politically centrist, very rich, altruistic, capitalist, nationalist

Culture
"Guilt Culture" or Schuldkultur is a decent theory, but it is not nearly the whole story. The simple fact is that there is no such thing as a German Culture. Germany, as proclaimed after the Franco-Prussian war, is hardly 200 years old. 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. 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.

Freedom
Germany was the first true authoritarian country in history, which can be explained by their 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. "The Prussian state does not have an army; The Prussian army has a state."The martial style of the Prussian State was the reason they could unite all the German-speaking peoples of Europe. So why would they change what already works?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.
My point is that the German people have no concept of what the Anglophones call "freedom", since they haven't experienced it in generations. The ones who yearned for the freedoms they used to enjoy under the Holy Roman Empire have already left and settled the Midwest. 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.
Germans do not place freedom in their value system as highly as some other peoples, as they value stability and security much more. 

Politics
Germans don't like politics, nor do they have time for it, since they much rather work. 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.
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. 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 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.
Although the debate lasted an hour and a half, 43 minutes were spent talking solely about the Migrant Crisis. In fact, more time was spent bashing the Hungarian Prime Minister than the Amrican President. This odd display of priorities said a lot about the concerns of the political elite, but I was not convinced that the German people held the same concerns in mind. I mean after all, 70% of the populace voted for one of these two candidates, of whom both are pro open borders.

Immigration
As of 1914 at its territorial height, there were 65 million German-speakers within the borders of the German Empire, and the equal amount of German-speakers outside of it in Switzerland, Austria-Hungary, Russia, France, USA, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, German-Africa, etc. Germans were a majority only in Switzerland, and in the other countries they were always minorities.
Wherever they went, the Germans worked hard, they learned the language, and fought for their new homeland. Germans are the model minority. This attitude towards the idea of settling in a new land influences their decisions to this day. When they accept someone onto their own lands, they expect of them what they would expect of themselves. And this is why they would need cultural sensitivity training... Not everyone is German.
The biggest problem with current migrant crisis is that most Germans still haven't seen a single migrant. They only know these newcomers in theory. Most Germans do not live in the population centres where the ghettos start to form. As far as they know, everything is going well.

Education
Homeschooling is illegal in Germany, and is punished by imprisonment. Education, including higher ed and preschool is mandatory, and mostly socialised, but special status exceptions exist for Religious and Private schools. Curriculums are mostly dictated by individual States. All this means that everyone is literally raised by the government.
If you ask an average German lad about the Teutonic Knights, he will have no idea what you are talking about. However, if you ask him what he thinks of European Federalism, he probably already has a powerpoint presentation ready to go on his phone.
In short, government education in Germany is geared towards fostering loyalty in the children not for Germany, but for the European Union.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

As a German who is a 4th generation immigrant (also known as a naturalized American), based on what I know of my family history, I can certainly piece together vaguely why my noble ancestors from Walheim abandoned their decaying county for the land that recognized property rights and civil liberties above all else. 

I think Germany is due for another civil war. Unfortunately my cousins have a history of being as thick-headed and simple-minded as the average caveman; he'd rather be burned by the fire he invented then try to tame it. Perhaps once the German ethnicities have gotten their act together and reformed like the Russian ethnicities did, I can look across the ocean and see my ancestral home as something true rather than something fabricated.

I don't have much more to say of the situation other than my opinions are prone to change. At one point I was a Communist; another a Fascist; then something in between; then a Libertarian; then... I guess I stopped following groups and instead embraced philosophy and Roman Catholicism to help me find answers to hard questions. My answer individually is to gtfo of Germany and wait for it to inevitably spiral out of control then move back in once the fires have stopped burning. Unless you, a cousin German, truly value Germany, then Germany is not worth fighting for. It was founded on force; let it end by force; and be re-founded by principle and live by principle like America has largely until the present day; where Yugoslavian-style ethnic conflict appears to be a path we're walking down--however we can still avoid or at least mitigate it, though personally I can't say I value my nation or it's current culture as much as I do my historical ethnic nation of South Germany or the cultural sphere of Roman Catholicism and Stefan-inspired-and-conceptualized AnCap and Philosophy, which isn't contingent on the continued existence of the American Republic. 

Conversation with you and learning from you has largely transformed my political preferences towards monarchism. Although I consider AnCap the ideal, I believe monarchism to be practically the best way to get there (as it respects the rights of land owners and fosters long-term planning and keeping relative to mob rule and short-term planning/living) combined with a personal commitment to growth and peaceful parenting. 

[RichardY]

@Mishi2 So you're 25-50% German, 50%-75% Mongolian? German Grandfather, Siberian POW?

Going on the train through the north east of Bavaria (the region was at one point heavy in porcelain manufacture before it was moved to Eastern Europe, China and The Czech Rep.) to Passau in Austria(Good scenery, but getting off at the train station, looked like some 3rd world African Dictatorship hangout). Was surprised at the number of vacant buildings Residential, but mostly Industrial, going through the North of Bavaria. Heard a story (before the migrant crisis) of a homeless man just getting a house from the council. Can be expensive in the UK or long waiting lists for councils. 

I wouldn't necessarily say the Germans are industrious, they are much more on the orderly side. (Ok there's STHL, BMW, Mercedes Motorola, Siemens Etc... But they throw down the towels with patents) Immaculate streets in some areas like in Norway, favourite colour for their cars grey......... The English can be more industrious (Industrial Revolution), but are less orderly(muddle through).  

The Germans in the South of Portugal still mostly speak German to each other and stay in their own communities, same with the former Volga Germans, perhaps the same in Argentina.

Tyranny(goes with being high in orderliness), I wouldn't say that the Germans are Authoritarians, else why get rid of/dismiss Bismarck Chancellor of Germany?

Teutonic, had a grandfather use that expression in a diary he wrote as a POW, means to be high in conscientiousness/orderliness to the point of insanity. Used it to refer to roll calls when he was being marched through eastern Germany in the snow. Was captured after a flak shell exploded in his plane over Greece(Kefalonia), killing his navigator. Crashed his plane into the sea, as opposed to the harbour. Later when he was being interrogated, after being treated, as he was cut up and burned a bit, one of his knees was smashed in a bit as well I think. Told the Gestapo he'd piss on their desk, if they didn't let him go to the loo.

Looking at the moment at going to the Blackforest (Titisee-Neustadt) in Germany in December (found a place to stay), all going well, if not still plan to go to Germany, muddle through. I think the easiest route would be to fly into Basel Intl (based in France) and then get the train or coach, might have to stay the night in a hostel somewhere. 

[striped toothpaste]

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?

 

[M.2]

3 hours ago, striped toothpaste said:

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.)
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Please try to bring up one point/topic after another, not everything at once.
4. 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

Hi, striped toothpaste

This is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you for putting in the effort. As I said above, I am having trouble understanding you Germans.
1. Actually, not in the Midwest, but I am coming here to verify my homework, preferably by Germans. I currently live in Belgium.
2. I am not really Anarchist, but I am very open to the idea.
3. Ok. One by one
4. You can be as insensitive as you want, as long as you don't insult my intelligence. I got a great sense of humour.

3 hours ago, striped toothpaste said:

> 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. 

Compared to other Europeans, of course. Germans are objectively hardworking based on gdp per capita. If you produce, that means you work. The most productive being southern Germany, which is catholic. See map:  http://i.imgur.com/Izf8k2F.jpg
You give a fair explanation, but I don't think that is it. In the 17th and 18th centuries, many German speakers moved to the Carpathian Basin and the Volga River, where they outproduced the locals by such a margin that their cities became the local industrial centres. See Brasov, Volgograd

Quote

> very tolerant of opinions (no, really) We have the same problems with political correctness as do all the other traditionally protestant countries…

I thought this might be controversial. I am well aware of censorship in Germany. I have made a post about it before. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/49213-how-far-does-free-speech-go/?tab=comments#comment-447497
The reason I said that is because I was talking about the German people, and far as I know, social austricism is not so strong there. And they are happy to engage in a discussion. I see you as evidence for that. But correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote

> 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 ;-)

I am so glad you debunked this myth. As far as my experience goes, Germans party like no other, save the Dutch perhaps. The reason everyone thinks they are socially conservative is that they are usually very late in legally accepting progressive causes compared to the West

Why exactly should I not divide Germany into 3 parts?

Quote

> "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?

Right-Wingers like to use that explanation to rationalise why the German people are so inviting towards their destruction. I tend to disagree based on personal conversations.

Quote

> 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.

Germany does not exist, or at least has not existed before the Franco-Prussian War. Bavaria existed, Saxony existed, Prussia existed. What I mean is that Germany does not have a monopoly on German culture. As I said, half of the German speakers lived outside of Germany in 1914.

Quote

> 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?

If I ask you, "who is German"? What would you answer? An American is someone who has American citizenship, a Japanese is someone who has a Japanese parent, a Russian is someone who swears loyalty to the Russian Federation. I'll let Mr.Molyneux make my case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CETiBe9X7g&t=0s

Quote

> 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.

Wikipedia, I guess. Would you say that someone from Hamburg would undertsand the local dialect in Zürich? I understand there is a language continuum from north to south, but so is there one from Naples to Lisbon. Would you classify Sicilian and Galician as the same language?

Quote

> 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.

You don't have a particular militaristic heritage? The things you learn... Not sure if Poland agrees though.

Quote

> 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.

Sorry, I meant Kingdom of Prussia. I don't think your case stands there. Every country run by a Military Order is by definition militarised. Take Malta for instance. The only reason they could repell the Ottomans twice was their militarised state. But I am interested in your case.

Quote

> 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.

Again, there is a reason I am asking the FDR community on this stuff.
Right, I should have said "most of the German speaking peoples". Anyway, I think you may be right about this one.

Quote

> 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.

I don't get it.

Quote

> 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.

My point was that freedom is not the best argument you can make to someone from present Germany because you would not be talking about the same thing. Yes, the French do not have a sense of humour.
Sure, tell a story. My point here was that German citizens consistently vote for more government control at the expense of their individual liberties, and they rationalise it too.

Quote

> 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.

I am going to have to see some stats on that one. But you are right. The last election in Germany drew a 76% turnout, while the one in the US was 54%. Glad to be corrected.

To be fair, I did take some satirical liberty with that one. 

Quote

> 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. 

That makes sense. I don't think we disagree here, but I'm glad you gave an explanation.

Quote

> 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.

You can see that at the very beginning of september, some drastic changes had occurred: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_2017#/media/File:German_Opinion_Polls_2017_Election.png

Thanks for your patience!

 

[M.2]

22 hours ago, RichardY said:

1. So you're 25-50% German, 50%-75% Mongolian? German Grandfather, Siberian POW?
2. I wouldn't necessarily say the Germans are industrious, they are much more on the orderly side. (Ok there's STHL, BMW, Mercedes Motorola, Siemens Etc... But they throw down the towels with patents) Immaculate streets in some areas like in Norway, favourite colour for their cars grey......... The English can be more industrious (Industrial Revolution), but are less orderly(muddle through). 
3. The Germans in the South of Portugal still mostly speak German to each other and stay in their own communities, same with the former Volga Germans, perhaps the same in Argentina.
4. Tyranny(goes with being high in orderliness), I wouldn't say that the Germans are Authoritarians, else why get rid of/dismiss Bismarck Chancellor of Germany?
5. Teutonic, had a grandfather use that expression in a diary he wrote as a POW, means to be high in conscientiousness/orderliness to the point of insanity. Used it to refer to roll calls when he was being marched through eastern Germany in the snow. 

1. I have a great-grandfather on my mother's side who was Danubian German. He died at the Battle of Stalingrad (1942) serving in the Second Hungarian Army.
My other great-grandfather on that side is a christianised jew who died during the Siege of Budapest (1945).
My paternal great-grandfathers were both essentially Inner Mongolian and partly Chinese. Both served and died during the war of independence against the Republic of China (1921).
I don't really know the percentages, but it would be interesting to take one of those DNA tests.
2. Bavaria and Baden-Württenberg are statistically the most industrious regions in Europe if not the world. The Rhine region being not far behind.
3. As far as I know, Germans have integrated into every country they settled in. But I'm sure there are exceptions.
4. I don't remember saying that Germans were authoritarians, but the State of Prussia and Germany definitely are. I am well aware that Switzerland, probably the least authoritarian place on the planet, was also founded by Germans.
5. Stereotypes have a basis in reality. I used a lot of simplifications in my post above, but only because I respect the intelligence of the FDR community, and I expect them to mentally note exceptions.

On ‎2017‎. ‎10‎. ‎29‎. at 8:10 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

1. As a German who is a 4th generation immigrant (also known as a naturalized American), based on what I know of my family history, I can certainly piece together vaguely why my noble ancestors from Walheim abandoned their decaying county for the land that recognized property rights and civil liberties above all else.
2. I think Germany is due for another civil war. Unfortunately my cousins have a history of being as thick-headed and simple-minded as the average caveman; he'd rather be burned by the fire he invented then try to tame it. Perhaps once the German ethnicities have gotten their act together and reformed like the Russian ethnicities did, I can look across the ocean and see my ancestral home as something true rather than something fabricated.
3. Conversation with you and learning from you has largely transformed my political preferences towards monarchism. Although I consider AnCap the ideal, I believe monarchism to be practically the best way to get there (as it respects the rights of land owners and fosters long-term planning and keeping relative to mob rule and short-term planning/living) combined with a personal commitment to growth and peaceful parenting. 

1. I was expecting you to chime in. Germany has been the biggest producer of Americans. And I'm sure there is a good reason for that. One doesn't leave a place that is perfectly fine, especially not in the millions. One might even consider the German immigrant waves to be refugees.
2. As I mentioned above, there are nuances to Germany too, and the Saxons and Bavarians have already been showing promising signs, birthing the AFD movement and allying themselves with the V4 respectively. I would be curious to know about these dynamics too. Maybe striped toothpaste can give sense.
3. I am glad our conversations have been fruitful. I have learned about AnCap from you as well. Mr.Molyneux speaks often of reason and evidence. While reason may be on the AnCap side, the evidence is entirely on the side of Monarchy. Something to calculate is whether it is Monarchy that leads to AnCap, or is it Democracy. I actually think that Democracy may be the winner on this one, but again, this is only theory.

[RichardY]

29 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

1. I have a great-grandfather on my mother's side who was Danubian German. He died at the Battle of Stalingrad (1942) serving in the Second Hungarian Army.
My other great-grandfather on that side is a christianised jew who died during the Siege of Budapest (1945).
My paternal great-grandfathers were both essentially Inner Mongolian and partly Chinese. Both served and died during the war of independence against the Republic of China (1921).
I don't really know the percentages, but it would be interesting to take one of those DNA tests.
2. Bavaria and Baden-Württenberg are statistically the most industrious regions in Europe if not the world. The Rhine region being not far behind.
3. As far as I know, Germans have integrated into every country they settled in. But I'm sure there are exceptions.
4. I don't remember saying that Germans were authoritarians, but the State of Prussia and Germany definitely are. I am well aware that Switzerland, probably the least authoritarian place on the planet, was also founded by Germans.
5. Stereotypes have a basis in reality. I used a lot of simplifications in my post above, but only because I respect the intelligence of the FDR community, and I expect them to mentally note exceptions.

2. Well I guess they have the equipment there. When I was in Austria, apparently they had some turbine manufacturing industry also their dairy industry was/is heavily mechanised, climate controlled and dependent on Russian Gas. Just not being very industrious pumping out 1 child per couple on avg.

4.

Quote

Freedom - "Germany was the first true authoritarian country in history, which can be explained by their militaristic heritage. "

Guess it also depends what you mean by authoritarian.

[striped toothpaste]

On 10/29/2017 at 4:26 PM, Mishi2 said:

I currently live in Belgium.

Well, then you already knew that the French are pricks.

On 10/29/2017 at 4:26 PM, Mishi2 said:

I am having trouble understanding you Germans.

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?

[M.2]

On ‎2017‎. ‎10‎. ‎29‎. at 6:49 PM, RichardY said:

2. Well I guess they have the equipment there. When I was in Austria, apparently they had some turbine manufacturing industry also their dairy industry was/is heavily mechanised, climate controlled and dependent on Russian Gas. Just not being very industrious pumping out 1 child per couple on avg.
4. Guess it also depends what you mean by authoritarian.

2. This is part of what I don't understand about Germans. I don't get how they can be so productive in some sense, yet completely destructive in others.
4. Good point. A military is authoritarian by design. There cannot be a non-authoritarian military. Same goes for a state that is run by the military.

8 hours ago, striped toothpaste said:

1. Well, then you already knew that the French are pricks.

2. 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?

1. Calling Belgians French is far worse than calling Austrians Germans. And I think you know how Austrians react. But yes, I agree the French are most unpleasant.

2. Fair inquiry. All this relates to the migrant crisis in essence, which is something that completely baffles everyone and not only me. But the outcome of the last Federal Elections has only confirmed that I know nothing about Germans. Americans are pretty straightforward. They recognise the problem, they identify the solution, and they run with it. Whereas all that I see of Germany is that they are sitting in the muck without much effort made to getting out.
Hopefully this addresses your questions.

   ...

Poland in 2001: Hey, let's go left!             Hungary in 2006: Shall we try left?              Germany in 2009: How about left?    Germany today: How about left?
Poland in 2005: Literally anything else...   Hungary in 2010: Not a word of this again.   Germany in 2013: How about left?   (Disorder probably genetic by now)
Poland today: What "left"?                      Hungary today: Soros?... why you asking me? 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

13 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

2. This is part of what I don't understand about Germans. I don't get how they can be so productive in some sense, yet completely destructive in others.
4. Good point. A military is authoritarian by design. There cannot be a non-authoritarian military. Same goes for a state that is run by the military.

Well, a mercenary or militia band is a non-authoritarian military since they're formed voluntarily. Of course most non-guerrilla groups have the same basic man-in-hat shouts, man-with-rife does format. But in the cases of mercenaries and militias, they're voluntary (until they start forcing people to join them or whatever but I'm speaking about them in principle not necessarily in practice in a hectic situation). 

Quote

1. Calling Belgians French is far worse than calling Austrians Germans.

 

AUSTRIANS ARE GERMANS!!! German is the big umbrella that encompasses all the German-sounding and German-speaking (plus genes and all that) peoples of the world, which includes Volga Germans, German minorities in America and South America, "Austrians" (Eastern-Realm-ers), and of course the imprecisely defined country in Central Europe.

...Just wanted to call you out on that.

Quote

2. Fair inquiry. All this relates to the migrant crisis in essence, which is something that completely baffles everyone and not only me. But the outcome of the last Federal Elections has only confirmed that I know nothing about Germans. Americans are pretty straightforward. They recognise the problem, they identify the solution, and they run with it. Whereas all that I see of Germany is that they are sitting in the muck without much effort made to getting out.
Hopefully this addresses your questions.

   ...

Poland in 2001: Hey, let's go left!             Hungary in 2006: Shall we try left?              Germany in 2009: How about left?    Germany today: How about left?
Poland in 2005: Literally anything else...   Hungary in 2010: Not a word of this again.   Germany in 2013: How about left?   (Disorder probably genetic by now)
Poland today: What "left"?                      Hungary today: Soros?... why you asking me? 

Isn't it enough to say Germans (In Germany at least) are currently suicidal and easily cowed into voting for whomever they perceive as the moral/martial authority? 

EDIT and ADDED: I think AnCap will be build-able once three key principles have become firmly rooted into at least 10% of the populace: Peaceful Parenting; Libertarianism (i.e. pro-Free Market , Small Government, and Isolationism); and either U.P.B. or Roman Catholicism. 

I don't think it matters whether it is a monarchy or a republic; once a sizable portion of the population is firm and dedicated enough in the pursuit of these three things it will, either though financial power (like the Jews in founding Israel), geographic power (like the Americans founding the U.S.A.), or through simply working/politicking itself into political power, establish an Ancapistan which will necessarily be governed by D.R.O.'s (reminder: free market police) and protected by C.D.A.'s (reminder: mercenaries comprised of the local populace) until the rest of the nation is "converted" or "naturalized" into the system of freedom. 

I think a monarchy is more like achieve these goals since it could be a long-term plan of a founding King or Kaiser to prepare a populace through a multi-generational process or at the very least through its aristocracy, to whom AnCap should most appeal,  and the fact that monarchies are not mob-ruled and far more likely to build back up and sustain a moral fiber and dedication from the populace, which is absolutely necessary for anarchy to come into existence without being quickly demolished by power-seekers.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Siegfried von Walheim

[RichardY]

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

4. Good point. A military is authoritarian by design. There cannot be a non-authoritarian military. Same goes for a state that is run by the military. 

How is authority established? Divine Right, Psychopathic murder, popularity, competency, tradition etc... Probably a logical answer somewhere, I'd consider Stefan an authority on Philosophy, Ethics, Current Events, Virtue. It's not like there's numerous academics with tenure are churning out well thought-out and informative content regularly on Youtube.

If the German state had been imo Authoritarian, then Bismarck wouldn't have been dismissed. If the people or German princes were authoritarian why not put someone competent in charge of state affairs and avoid having Greatpowers 2(Germany, Austro-Hungary) vs 3(Britain, France & Russia). Instead of Authoritarian, I would say a military dictatorship initially under the kaiser. If people are going to be fundamentally conscripted  and dismissed how can someone be an authority? Contrasted to the British Expeditionary force made up of professional volunteers(which conversely can be authoritarian if not compelled), had the best rifle in WW1. 

Like in Iraq during the Gulf War, if Saddam Hussein just shoots or dismisses anybody who disagrees with him (and the people and officials don't oppose his actions) how can anyone be an authority in the military?  instead the conscripts just wind up massacred pulling out of Kuwait or fighting Iran.

A non-authoritarian military imo can run for awhile, but it would require a "secret police force"(to essentially murder or imprison "Enemies of the State") such as in Rev France(killed all their experienced Admirals), Iraq, Rome (Sulla and then the Caesars), Persia(immortals), Italy, Spain, Russia and Germany.  

 

[striped toothpaste]

15 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

1. Calling Belgians French is far worse than calling Austrians Germans. And I think you know how Austrians react. But yes, I agree the French are most unpleasant.

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.

 

15 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

2. Fair inquiry. All this relates to the migrant crisis in essence, which is something that completely baffles everyone and not only me. … … …

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:

Quote

To prevent Presidential dictatorships, in 1913 Batlle proposed to introduce a collective Presidency (colegiado), based on the Swiss Federal Council model. 

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.

 

[M.2]

On ‎2017‎. ‎11‎. ‎01‎. at 9:27 AM, striped toothpaste said:

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.

Oh, well, I genuinely don't like the French. I get along with them as long as they are willing to, but the problem is that they don't very often.

Quote

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.

Thanks, I am German in my veins after all. 

Quote

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... ...

I think I have a grasp on how the system works. I was hoping to learn more about what the people think of the system, and why they are not using it to enact change. I don't know how long you have been around reading the Forums, but I have chatted with people about various systems of government.
Why did you link to the Obelisk of Montevideo when you wrote "go play civ"?

 

On ‎2017‎. ‎10‎. ‎31‎. at 9:05 PM, RichardY said:

1. How is authority established? Divine Right, Psychopathic murder, popularity, competency, tradition etc... Probably a logical answer somewhere, I'd consider Stefan an authority on Philosophy, Ethics, Current Events, Virtue. It's not like there's numerous academics with tenure are churning out well thought-out and informative content regularly on Youtube.
2. If the German state had been imo Authoritarian, then Bismarck wouldn't have been dismissed. If the people or German princes were authoritarian why not put someone competent in charge of state affairs and avoid having Greatpowers 2(Germany, Austro-Hungary) vs 3(Britain, France & Russia). Instead of Authoritarian, I would say a military dictatorship initially under the kaiser. If people are going to be fundamentally conscripted  and dismissed how can someone be an authority? Contrasted to the British Expeditionary force made up of professional volunteers(which conversely can be authoritarian if not compelled), had the best rifle in WW1.
3. Like in Iraq during the Gulf War, if Saddam Hussein just shoots or dismisses anybody who disagrees with him (and the people and officials don't oppose his actions) how can anyone be an authority in the military?  instead the conscripts just wind up massacred pulling out of Kuwait or fighting Iran.
4. A non-authoritarian military imo can run for awhile, but it would require a "secret police force"(to essentially murder or imprison "Enemies of the State") such as in Rev France(killed all their experienced Admirals), Iraq, Rome (Sulla and then the Caesars), Persia(immortals), Italy, Spain, Russia and Germany.  

1. Yes, I believe that is how authority works. In one of those ways at least. You may consider him an authority, but I don't think that's how he wants you to think of him. He overtly dismisses any claim of authority in philosophy very frequently.
2. I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, because this part sounds very off to me. Bismarck was the ultimate authoritarian, according to the Webster definition, and so was the Kaiser, and hence the State of Prussia and of Germany. I woulld argue they did put very competent people in charge. They conquered central europe and beat all the major powers after all. You can't do that without competence, and I don't think authoritarianism rules out meritocracy. A good example is Napoleon's Empire.
3. First, I am highly sceptical of any rumors regarding enemies of the USA. Let's say it's true though. Being a military dictatorship, authority in Iraq was determined by someone's statusin the military, which one had to attain through hard work and charisma most of the time. A military authority can be establishe d by a bunch of things. I think the support of the officers and soldiers is a minimal requirement, but some may claim to have been appointed by a god, or maybe they may hold the Darwinian Naturalist view that the stringest must rule.
4. Everything in politics temporal, except San Marino and the Tenno- they seem to remain with us for a while. 
I'm not sure what a non-authoritarian military dictatorship is. Seems like an oxymoron. Enlighten me if I'm missing something.

 

Quote

Well, a mercenary or militia band is a non-authoritarian military since they're formed voluntarily. Of course most non-guerrilla groups have the same basic man-in-hat shouts, man-with-rife does format. But in the cases of mercenaries and militias, they're voluntary (until they start forcing people to join them or whatever but I'm speaking about them in principle not necessarily in practice in a hectic situation). 

Yeah, that's a good point. I guess this may be what Richard was getting at.

Quote

AUSTRIANS ARE GERMANS!!! German is the big umbrella that encompasses all the German-sounding and German-speaking (plus genes and all that) peoples of the world, which includes Volga Germans, German minorities in America and South America, "Austrians" (Eastern-Realm-ers), and of course the imprecisely defined country in Central Europe. ...Just wanted to call you out on that.

Actually (imagine me with glasses snorting at a screen), Germanic Peoples is the term you are talking about. However, as a matter of fact,I agree with you. German used to mean a person who speaks a Germanic language, and that by all means applies to Austrians. If you read some old stories of the Habsburg Era, you will see Austrians being referred to as Germans. In colloquial language in Hungary, we still call them Germans, and offend them too.
I brought up that comparison because technically, Belgians speak French, just like Austrians speak German, but it is even more inaccurate because most Belgians are Flemish speakers.

Quote

Isn't it enough to say Germans (In Germany at least) are currently suicidal and easily cowed into voting for whomever they perceive as the moral/martial authority?

I'm certain that is part of it. Which is why we are having a conversation about authority and the German perception of it.

Quote

I think AnCap will be build-able once three key principles have become firmly rooted into at least 10% of the populace: Peaceful Parenting; Libertarianism (i.e. pro-Free Market , Small Government, and Isolationism); and either U.P.B. or Roman Catholicism. 

I pretty confident when I say that Germans were freer when they were still christian, monarchist, and when Freistaat (free state) actually meant what it means.
The issue is that, I suspect, most of those people have migrated to the Americas.

[lorry]

Has anyone considered that, given the never ending bombardment of guilt upon Germans, it would be rational this think of all Germans as having a minimum ACE of 2 or 3?

And then you look at Germany and think OK, everyone in this country has a minimum ACE of 2 or 3 from never ending abuse about "the holocaust" and that is what 64 million abuse victims look like.

Bottom point in OP, homeschooling is illegal. Got to make sure you torture these kids into understanding how fucking evil they are because "6 million? 11 million? 500,000? 182,000? 6 million Jews were killed by electric floors? roller-coasters that threw them into ovens? masturbation machines? giant electric chairs which fried 10,000 Jews at a time? poison gas" and if they question the reason why they are evil? Jail.

 

Germany is a nation of abuse victims and they act like a nation of abuse victims.

[luxfelix]

On 10/31/2017 at 3:43 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I think a monarchy is more like achieve these goals since it could be a long-term plan of a founding King or Kaiser to prepare a populace through a multi-generational process or at the very least through its aristocracy, to whom AnCap should most appeal,  and the fact that monarchies are not mob-ruled and far more likely to build back up and sustain a moral fiber and dedication from the populace, which is absolutely necessary for anarchy to come into existence without being quickly demolished by power-seekers.

I've heard this case made before.

In the case of Germany, what would you say that means?

Restoring the House of Habsburg, Hohenzollern, Wittlesbach, and/or Wettin (etc.)?

An elective monarchy/new dynasty?

Restoring something like the HRE (many smaller nations)?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

58 minutes ago, luxfelix said:

I've heard this case made before.

In the case of Germany, what would you say that means?

Restoring the House of Habsburg, Hohenzollern, Wittlesbach, and/or Wettin (etc.)?

An elective monarchy/new dynasty?

Restoring something like the HRE (many smaller nations)?

Something new, I believe.

Theoretically speaking, I doubt the old dynasties come off as credible leaders to anyone seeking freedom and peace. After all, they screwed up badly enough at the end to be forcibly removed from power.

I think if any monarchies come about, it'll be as a result of either a military coup or a revolution. Perhaps a Prime Minister manages to get a bunch of generals to agree with him and support him, thereby providing him the fist to strike down the existing system and prop one up of his own design. Of course it's much more likely he'll set up a dictatorship that's oppressive and socialistic, but there is a small chance he'll pull a Pinochet and actually be a good-willed guy seeking positive change. if he is, he might be set up a stable government based on some form of aristocracy and set his own family, or the family of a good friend, to be the dynast. 

I think it's very unlikely to happen this way--much more likely bad guys will take over and do as they please--but afterwards there's likely to be counter-revolutions from various different parties and I think the ones that will prove most stable in the end are either moderate republics or benevolent monarchies. The Republic might Rome-style transition into a practical monarchy, and the benevolent monarchies (i.e. they'll be reasonable and have a morally lawful and consistent system) will probably maintain themselves simply because they are better than what came before them (or the people are too exhausted to be roused up for another revolt). 

My guess: within to 100 years from now all of Europe will be faced with revolts and the result will be repeated civil and national wars that will end with the establishment of stable monarchies and a few republics. I assume Christendom will be the basis for the stable countries and that they'll probably follow a post-Dark Ages pattern from thereon; most likely starting off good and slowly going bad until the next cycle. 

I think Germany in particular will suffer due to the immense social, ethical, and ethnic problems they have. The militant socialists will probably seize power followed by fascistic revolts; one side will rule for a generation until the system inevitably collapses and either a pseudo-republican (i.e. a guy planning on using the banner of restoring democracy as cover for a dictatorship) or outright dictatorial strongman will stand up to seize power. I'm sure before or by the time they win, foreign intervention will splinter Germany and all Europe to the point where I'm sure hundreds of smaller countries are formed and they'll probably do whatever the local warlord (most likely either a charismatic orator with a militia or general) wants them to do (probably start off with a fake democracy followed by a real monarchy) and slowly over time these oppressive systems will be moderated by the anchors (i.e. the financial/material investors, descendants of generals and war heroes,) who'll become the new nobility, and eventually Germany will be like a mix of Arabia (foreign intervention messing things up like crazy) and the Holy Roman Empire (a bunch of smaller states converging to throw out the interventionists). 

I'm sure it won't happen exactly like I predicted, but I am sure over time Europe as a whole will move forwards by looking backwards and eventually moderate the same way Europe moderated after the fall of the Roman Empire and the Dark Ages; via stable monarchies and elitist republics. 

Whether they'll be better off or not is to be debated ( think they will). However I'm pretty sure everyone in Europe will be affected by it (in fact I wouldn't be surprised if after a hundred years Russia becomes a bastion of old-school democracy, in the same vein America was before the Federal Reserve. However I think it's equally likely the Russians will get comfortable having a familiar face in charge and let monarchism return without much resistance). 

In conclusion I think Europe (and America) will just get exhausted and monarchies will seize power simply because no one will be left to fight them. 

Personally this is why I plan on immigrating to Russia if America still looks hot for civil war within the next 10 years. I think Russia will be far more stable as a republic than any other country. 

Edited November 15, 2017 by Siegfried von Walheim

[M.2]

23 hours ago, lorry said:

1. Has anyone considered that, given the never ending bombardment of guilt upon Germans, it would be rational this think of all Germans as having a minimum ACE of 2 or 3? And then you look at Germany and think OK, everyone in this country has a minimum ACE of 2 or 3 from never ending abuse about "the holocaust" and that is what 64 million abuse victims look like. Germany is a nation of abuse victims and they act like a nation of abuse victims.
2. Bottom point in OP, homeschooling is illegal. Got to make sure you torture these kids into understanding how fucking evil they are because "6 million? 11 million? 500,000? 182,000? 6 million Jews were killed by electric floors? roller-coasters that threw them into ovens? masturbation machines? giant electric chairs which fried 10,000 Jews at a time? poison gas" and if they question the reason why they are evil? Jail.

1. As I said in my very first post, guil-culture is definitely a thing. There are 3 nations that lost both world wars. Germany, Austria and Hungary. All three have been relentlessly bombarded with shame since 1945. Germany wasn't even the main culprit in starting these wars either. In the first, it was clearly Austra who fired the first shot. And contrary to popular belief, it was not Germany that annexed Austria, rather Austra that annexed Germany, since Herr Hitler was Austrian. It was an Austrian that fired the first shot in the second as well.
That settled, what sets Germans in Germany apart from everyone else is the unusual disability to recognise mistakes and change. "Knowledge applied is the sign of intelligence", and Germans are without question intelligent. Yet they keep on voting for the exact same leftist policies that have failed them so many times before in the last century. Both Austria and Hungary have very fluctuating election rounds, because they recognise the need for change.
2. That is true, however, you can bet that communism was a much more effective guilt-machine for the Hungarians. 600 thousand Jews were killed by the Hungary, which makes Hungarians proportionally having killed more Jews than Germany. The population of the Empire at its height was 200 mill; killed 6 million jews. The population of the Kingdom of Hungary at its height was 15 mill; killed 0.6 mill. They are simply not showing the same symptoms.

20 hours ago, luxfelix said:

I've heard this case made before.

Hi, luxfelix !

19 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

1. Theoretically speaking, I doubt the old dynasties come off as credible leaders to anyone seeking freedom and peace. After all, they screwed up badly enough at the end to be forcibly removed from power.
2. My guess: within to 100 years from now all of Europe will be faced with revolts and the result will be repeated civil and national wars that will end with the establishment of stable monarchies and a few republics. I assume Christendom will be the basis for the stable countries and that they'll probably follow a post-Dark Ages pattern from thereon; most likely starting off good and slowly going bad until the next cycle.
3. I'm sure it won't happen exactly like I predicted, but I am sure over time Europe as a whole will move forwards by looking backwards and eventually moderate the same way Europe moderated after the fall of the Roman Empire and the Dark Ages; via stable monarchies and elitist republics.
4. In conclusion I think Europe (and America) will just get exhausted and monarchies will seize power simply because no one will be left to fight them. 

1. I have to admit that Monarchy had killed its credibility with WW1. Nevertheless, there are still royal families around who have not yet relinquished their titles, and they are still only marrying with other royals, just as if they were waiting for an opportune moment to resume their full control over Europe. Adding to that, there are more silent monarchists in Europe than one might guess. In Austra, for example, a recent poll revealed that 20% of the population supported the return of the Habsburg. I think you can safely double that number though, just as you can always double the numbers of the Right.
2. I always found it rather amusing how we still call the Medieval Era "Dark Ages", when we just lived through the most brutal time period in history, which we call the "Era of Progress" with a straight face. Monarchy has a proven track record; we know of no time in recorded history when there was no successful monarchy. Whereas Democracy, has a horrible, though admittedly short record.
3. There will come a time when we will return to the way humans are supposed to live, including the Germans.
4. Power, unless forcibly kept disunited, will always centralise. That is just the way power works. You can already see it everywhere in the world. There are no examples of a shrinking government. This can result in one of two ways: Dictatorship, or Monarchy. What is the difference? There is a god behind Monarchy, while behind Dictatorship, there is only a man. Seeing how things are developing in Germany, it will be a dictatorship first for sure, unless the southern catholic states secede of course.

[Worlok]

Germans have always thought that they were better than everybody else. They are pro immigration because they believe that the immigrants are their inferiors and need to be saved. Just like the believed they were better than the jews and better than Romans and so on and so forth. It's basically a culture of racism. Germany seeks to dominate a united Europe today and they sought to dominate a united Europe in the 30s and 40s. They haven't changed.

[luxfelix]

On ‎11‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 7:16 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Whether they'll be better off or not is to be debated ( think they will). However I'm pretty sure everyone in Europe will be affected by it (in fact I wouldn't be surprised if after a hundred years Russia becomes a bastion of old-school democracy, in the same vein America was before the Federal Reserve. However I think it's equally likely the Russians will get comfortable having a familiar face in charge and let monarchism return without much resistance). 

In conclusion I think Europe (and America) will just get exhausted and monarchies will seize power simply because no one will be left to fight them. 

Personally this is why I plan on immigrating to Russia if America still looks hot for civil war within the next 10 years. I think Russia will be far more stable as a republic than any other country. 

History rhymes.

There is historical precedent for Germans moving to Russia (including some of their monarchs).

[ofd]

Quote

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.

People shape the political systems they live under, not the other way round. Liberia has the adopted the Constitution, but the country is still a complete shitshow as one would expect.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

On 11/15/2017 at 3:15 PM, Mishi2 said:

1. As I said in my very first post, guil-culture is definitely a thing. There are 3 nations that lost both world wars. Germany, Austria and Hungary. All three have been relentlessly bombarded with shame since 1945. Germany wasn't even the main culprit in starting these wars either. In the first, it was clearly Austra who fired the first shot. And contrary to popular belief, it was not Germany that annexed Austria, rather Austra that annexed Germany, since Herr Hitler was Austrian. It was an Austrian that fired the first shot in the second as well.
That settled, what sets Germans in Germany apart from everyone else is the unusual disability to recognise mistakes and change. "Knowledge applied is the sign of intelligence", and Germans are without question intelligent. Yet they keep on voting for the exact same leftist policies that have failed them so many times before in the last century. Both Austria and Hungary have very fluctuating election rounds, because they recognise the need for change.
2. That is true, however, you can bet that communism was a much more effective guilt-machine for the Hungarians. 600 thousand Jews were killed by the Hungary, which makes Hungarians proportionally having killed more Jews than Germany. The population of the Empire at its height was 200 mill; killed 6 million jews. The population of the Kingdom of Hungary at its height was 15 mill; killed 0.6 mill. They are simply not showing the same symptoms.

Hi, luxfelix !

1. I have to admit that Monarchy had killed its credibility with WW1. Nevertheless, there are still royal families around who have not yet relinquished their titles, and they are still only marrying with other royals, just as if they were waiting for an opportune moment to resume their full control over Europe. Adding to that, there are more silent monarchists in Europe than one might guess. In Austra, for example, a recent poll revealed that 20% of the population supported the return of the Habsburg. I think you can safely double that number though, just as you can always double the numbers of the Right.

Interesting. But it is not really monarchic to rely on a majority; rather an elite minority (based on courage and conviction, not necessarily wealth).

I have no doubt some of the stabler families will return; however why they would return would, I think, dictate their longevity (as well of course as how many members of their circle seize power--theoretically if the Habsburgs returned, they could unite as a bloc against usurpers/outsiders who might be less or more benevolent).

On 11/15/2017 at 3:15 PM, Mishi2 said:

2. I always found it rather amusing how we still call the Medieval Era "Dark Ages", when we just lived through the most brutal time period in history, which we call the "Era of Progress" with a straight face. Monarchy has a proven track record; we know of no time in recorded history when there was no successful monarchy. Whereas Democracy, has a horrible, though admittedly short record.

I am referring to the time of the Fall of the Roman Empire to the founding of the First French Empire under Charlemagne and the Christianization of the Slavs. Before this and after the fall of the Roman Empire, there was quite the struggle for existence between barbarians, Christians, and civilized pagans.

On 11/15/2017 at 3:15 PM, Mishi2 said:

3. There will come a time when we will return to the way humans are supposed to live, including the Germans.

A.K.A. the fall of the welfare state.

On 11/15/2017 at 3:15 PM, Mishi2 said:

4. Power, unless forcibly kept disunited, will always centralise. That is just the way power works. You can already see it everywhere in the world. There are no examples of a shrinking government. This can result in one of two ways: Dictatorship, or Monarchy. What is the difference? There is a god behind Monarchy, while behind Dictatorship, there is only a man. Seeing how things are developing in Germany, it will be a dictatorship first for sure, unless the southern catholic states secede of course.

Not only that but there is the aristocracy which has personal investment in the lands they own/collect taxes from. I'd rather have a few tens of thousands of guys with above average intelligence(at least) plus Christian ethics and vested interest over a quickly multiplying mob of bunny rabbits dictating how I live my life--if there must be a government at all.

Russia might be able to sustain a democracy because they have a culture of responsibility and respecting others' property, unlike modern America where nothing if ever our fault and ever-escalating taxation and welfare is justice.

 

20 hours ago, luxfelix said:

History rhymes.

History is made in wisdom; and repeated in ignorance.

20 hours ago, luxfelix said:

There is historical precedent for Germans moving to Russia (including some of their monarchs).

Yepper. I am learning the language as I type, actually.

[M.2]

On ‎2017‎. ‎11‎. ‎16‎. at 2:28 AM, Worlok said:

Germans have always thought that they were better than everybody else. They are pro immigration because they believe that the immigrants are their inferiors and need to be saved. Just like the believed they were better than the jews and better than Romans and so on and so forth. It's basically a culture of racism. Germany seeks to dominate a united Europe today and they sought to dominate a united Europe in the 30s and 40s. They haven't changed.

You definitely hit A nail on the head there, if not necessarily THE nail. If one has ever spent time competing with Germans, you have to admit that Uncle Hitler had a point. There is without a doubt something superior about the Germans, and empyrical evidence proves it too. So I would say their sense of superiority is more or less warranted. However, my assessment is that the moment they start estimating themselves over God, that is when things go sideways. The Germans that seem to be displaying the worst behaviour are the seculars in Upper Germany, then the Protestants in the Rhineland, and only then come the Catholics (most of whom are nationalists anyway)

On ‎2017‎. ‎11‎. ‎17‎. at 1:50 PM, ofd said:

People shape the political systems they live under, not the other way round. Liberia has the adopted the Constitution, but the country is still a complete shitshow as one would expect.

You are right. I have always said that the phrase "enslaved by communism" is intellectually dishonest. It was always the stupid mob that fought for communism in their masses, always outnumbering the free people where they succeeded.

[lorry]

On 11/15/2017 at 8:15 PM, Mishi2 said:

 

 

Sorry my dude, I was not concentrating when I read OP.  My mistake.

[luxfelix]

On ‎11‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 12:38 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

History is made in wisdom; and repeated in ignorance.

I've heard comparisons of the present migrant crisis to historical invasions of Europe such as at the birth of Islam and/or the Roman policy of hiring barbarian mercenaries -- examples of history repeating via ignorance?

What would then be a way forward?

Reconquista? Civilization reboot?

For Germans in particular, does mass emigration seem likely to happen again?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

10 hours ago, luxfelix said:

I've heard comparisons of the present migrant crisis to historical invasions of Europe such as at the birth of Islam and/or the Roman policy of hiring barbarian mercenaries -- examples of history repeating via ignorance?

A better analogy might be the illegal immigrants and non-White in the American military, however I can't say for sure the negative effects will be as bad.

Probably the best example is the modern welfare-warfare state. Rome tried it; look what happened to them.

Quote

What would then be a way forward?

Reconquista? Civilization reboot?

I hate to say it but at this point it's time for most people to find stable communities and prepare for civil war. If the governments could be reclaimed then the best solution for the likes of the Germans would be to forcibly kick out the millions of Muslims currently invading their fatherland. However I doubt this will happen soon enough to prevent a civil war, therefore I recommend either moving to a big red-pilled city/town that's ready to defend itself militarily or gtfo and migrate to Eastern Europe, especially Russia.

Of course ideally the end result would be the abolition of the Federal Republic and the return of the Empire with a modern libertarian twist.

Quote

For Germans in particular, does mass emigration seem likely to happen again?

Given I'm a German who is almost certain that he will migrate because he sees only darkness in the next 50-100 years for America, I can only assume thousands of other Germans and German-Americans are thinking/feeling the same and are preparing to migrate. 

Russia seems like the best place to head to since they have a strong culture, nation, and sense of self as well as solid (though not perfect by any stretch) ethics. I encourage young whites (under 20-25, without debts and constraints) like myself to learn Russian and emigrate within the next decade before they decide they've had enough Westies and bar us from legally immigrating. 

Edited November 28, 2017 by Siegfried von Walheim

[meetjoeblack]

Quote

Revealed: 1,200 women were sexually assaulted by 2,000 men in German cities on New Year's Eve

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3684302/1-200-German-women-sexually-assaulted-New-Year-s-Eve-Cologne-elsewhere.html#ixzz4zqBbG7ou
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

This was not really that long ago. I've been to this country. It is absolutely beautiful. They people are proud. Unfortunately, things are changing and if people do not step up to protect what is theirs, all will be lost. Screams of racism is not an argument. If this were to happen here in the west, I would without hesitation be ending lives, and protect my family, loved ones, and myself.