Angela Merkel Will Step Down in 2021

[removeduser_487563287433]

The parties, especially Merkel has destroyed the state of law.

Yeah, go on. How?

[Morifea]

Funny, Neo National Socialists are Socialists either.

This Thread would benefit much from a definition of socialism everybody could agree upon.

Well, each system does have its profiteers.

I see myself more as a person that doesn`t care much about the system.

[dogukan]

Instead of trying to take quotes of historical bad guys out of context to create desperate ""parallels" with people you disagree with, let's look at historic events a little bit more soberly:
Let's start with beginning of XX century.
WW1 was motivated by globalism. It was major European powers fighting for things like colonies, geopolitical influence, etc.

Wrong. It was fought due to nationalism. Colonies are NOT "globalism". Globalism is open free trade for everyone. Colonies were MERCANTILISM, the opposite of liberalism.
The discussion that colonies were a natural consequence of the development of capitalism or material conditions as Marxists would say etc are one thing. But we are talking about the ideological self-definitions here.

You can make a desperate argument that Ferdinand's assassination was done by a nationalist group, which is trued but be that as it may, it was merely a catalyst to a conflict that was inevitable due to purely globalist geopolitical tendencies of major powers involved.

As I said above.
You seem to have no idea regarding what the "internationalist" movement of the period that evolved up to today is based on.
I'll give you a clue. Internationalists shunned colonies. Again, it can be argued that colonies were not profitable so the organization of cpaitalism had to change etc which would be a Marxist argument. But I am going over the self-identification.

Hitler was somewhat of a globalist as well,

Seems like in the following years the revisionist ridiculously will go locol

while resistance against him in Europe was motivated by ethno-nationalism. Globalist tendencies can also be applied to USSR's "word revolution" and ideas of Churchill and FDR as well.

HH, dude. I think you should first define what you refer to as "globalism". By your logic, nationalism is also globalism because it wants to expand the nations influence for the benefit of the people in the country at the cost of people in other countries.
Whatever you do in the GLOBAL SYSTEM has global consequences. That is pretty obvious since we do not live in isolated villages anymore.

Ethnic nationalism was the leading force behind opposition to both imperialism of NATO and Soviets.

Ethnic nationalism was used extensively as an anti-imperialist rhetoric...but it was heavily backed by the Soviets. Soviets backed ethnic nationalism globally to reverse western influence. They even backed KMT against Mao in China.
I don't remember any case where ethnic nationalism was used to revert Soviets until its perhaps last decade. In fact, if you look into politics of the Warsaw Pact countries, they were nationalist to the point of fascism. At the top of my head, I am prety sure the policies and rhetoric of the Bulgarian communist party against Turks would be considered ultra-nationalism by today's standards.

Moving on to current times, it is needless to say we can hardly attribute Iraq war, Libya war and current conflicts in Syria to nationalism, as main reason behind those were globalist interests of superpowers as well as religious sectarianism, which is globalist by its very nature.

There are many variables and explanations to explain that.
But we are talking about the "globalist ideology" of certain people. Not the consequences of global CAPITALISM and its integrated dynamics which are quiet well explained by Marxists that you love to define as globalists...

My beef here is with your revisionism. Your desire to put everything into "my good nationalism" vs "their bad globalism". Thats not how the world works.

So there we have it, you are simply ignoring major factors that prove that reality is the exact opposite of what you described - it was nationalism that contributed greatly to Western civilization, its political, technological and ideological achievements, while globalism merely contributed by destroying such achievements, sending world into turmoil and darkness of another intellectual dark age.

I would invite you to read economic history and some fundemental aspects of innovation and growth economics.
You are still trying to paint a black and white world through your biases.

[dogukan]

Germany has lost its democracy. The parties, especially Merkel has destroyed the state of law. Laws are only followed when they do fit their ideologies and agendas.
And without a state of law, there is no democracy.
There are reports about this, but they are mostly ignored by the subservient press and media.
Other medias are ignored by people who do not want to believe this.

I need 3rd party independent research to prove your claim. I am not disputing that the quality of "democracy" might have decreased or increased. But you are talking in binary terms at the extremities which points to an unhealthy approach where you have other more "devious" intentions in making that claim.
Germany is still a top notch democracy. Whether Merkel made it worse or better, I do not know. Saying Germany is an autocracy is ridiculous.

Today you can see that people who do not want to give their sovereignty are called traitors (of the European ideals et cetera). These people are threatened (as Merkel did in their speeches to the end of WkI). Her true authoritarian style.
Especially the Left is not capable to discuss factually. Without their safe spaces they get hysteric.

The use of word traitor is an EXTREMELY dangerous trend that shows an amount of extreme polarization and destruction of platform for compromise...which can only lead to terrible things.
I don't know what Merkel calls people, I just know that this is a global trend. You can argue that the polarization we have reached is merkels or EU's or Jewish financial elites of whatevers fault. That is a different debate.
That the lines of compromise are getting destroyed is obviously a sign of decline in qualiry of democracy.
Who is at fault for this, what portion of fault falls on who's shoulders, or whether there is an obvious human error that could have been avoided.
These would be much deeper discussions I'd avoid here at this time.

Gender ideology and asylum are industries of their own in Germany. State-sponsored industries because they need taxpayers moneys (there are nor benefits in these, only costs).
For this money Merkel has gotten much needed very public acclaim by these very well-connected coteries.
Another socialist economic is the communitisation of the debts of other European countries.
And the energy transistion.
Without massive influx of taxpayers money all this would have gone the way of the economic dodo.

Taxes had always been there. The problem here is your use of the word "socialist" for your ideological biases.
If you think Germany turned into a socialist economy under Merkel, I reckon you'd think you live right next to Stalin-led politburo in 1960s Frankfurt.

The "publicization of private debts" and burdening the public with costs is a consequence of neo-liberal capitalist expansion. Not socialism. Unions do not have the lobby power of the big corporate structures that come up with new policy schemes that put the risks on public and profits on themselves. There are many books regarding the use of debts, critiques mostly coming from Marxist scholars. I'd suggest you to have a look at David Harvey's work on how the 2008 crisis was handled, and how the neo-liberalism that got empowered by capitalism's expansion created these conditions of debt-risk publicization.

This is your opinion. My is different.
She has created a global-oriented moloch with socialist background (have taxpayers paid for all their ideological dresses-up wrong decisions), hardly a competent and innovative capitalism-based social market industry as her party (CDU) once stood for.

I specifically read into innovation dynamics of German economy and Merkel, along with many top German tech-giants is working pretty hard to keep Germany's edge. Mittelstands and their market functioning is a priority of the German Federal Republic if you bother to read their reports. You can see all the actions they take.
Also, merkel along with Schröder had overseen some of the biggest waves of deregulation in Germany, all the while achieving record growth rates and re-vitalizing it in the 2000s to a top-notch performance. And I am saying this as an anti-neoliberal leftist.
To not have an idea for this, you need to be a very young fella. Thinking Germany got more "socialist" under Merkel would be a pretty back joke even back in 2005.

The world would be a better place if everyone left their ideological circlejerk centers and searched&read genuine, honest data before making up their opinions.

Funny, Neo National Socialists are Socialists either.

Not sure what you mean here.

[Ludicus]

She led the EU's response to the sovereign debt crisis... an enduring austerity scheme to stabilise the wayward state's finances,.

Here, we have a different point of view.Portugal Has Emerged as Europe's Booming Anti-Germany – Foreign ...
Reject austerity to defeat populism, Portugal's socialist prime minister

Portugal rejection of austerity under a leftist government has stopped populism from taking root...and restored trust in EU there

That's exactly what happened.Opinion polling for the next Portuguese legislative election

But it is also true that we praise Merkel for showing real leadership over refugee crisis - and above all, Merkel's defense of European values, in this quasi-medieval age of hyper-nationalisms and illiberal democracies. Merkel is, most certainly, the future President of the European commision.

Costa elogia Merkel por estar “do lado certo daquilo que são os ... - Eco ( to sum up, Merkel is on the right side of history, says our socialist prime-minister)

Here, we need more immigration and we won't tolerate any xenophobic rhetoric.

[Heathen Hammer]

Wrong. It was fought due to nationalism. Colonies are NOT "globalism". Globalism is open free trade for everyone. Colonies were MERCANTILISM, the opposite of liberalism.
The discussion that colonies were a natural consequence of the development of capitalism or material conditions as Marxists would say etc are one thing. But we are talking about the ideological self-definitions here.

As I said above.
You seem to have no idea regarding what the "internationalist" movement of the period that evolved up to today is based on.
I'll give you a clue. Internationalists shunned colonies. Again, it can be argued that colonies were not profitable so the organization of cpaitalism had to change etc which would be a Marxist argument. But I am going over the self-identification.

I don't think you understand that that globalism comes in various types. Market globalism is only one of those aspects, and as I pointed with US/NATO's recent barbaric destruction of Middle East and North Africa, it doesn't really bring anything good either.
Clearly both Central Power and Entente were globalist organizations that were seeking typically globalist goals.

Seems like in the following years the revisionist ridiculously will go locol

Or that you are desperately trying to defend predatory practices of Western political establishment by denying the history of their application.

HH, dude. I think you should first define what you refer to as "globalism". By your logic, nationalism is also globalism because it wants to expand the nations influence for the benefit of the people in the country at the cost of people in other countries.
Whatever you do in the GLOBAL SYSTEM has global consequences. That is pretty obvious since we do not live in isolated villages anymore.

I'm just going by conventional definition of the term. Also I don't think you definition of nationalism is correct at all, which explains the factually incorrect assertions that you are making.

Ethnic nationalism was used extensively as an anti-imperialist rhetoric...but it was heavily backed by the Soviets. Soviets backed ethnic nationalism globally to reverse western influence. They even backed KMT against Mao in China.
I don't remember any case where ethnic nationalism was used to revert Soviets until its perhaps last decade. In fact, if you look into politics of the Warsaw Pact countries, they were nationalist to the point of fascism. At the top of my head, I am prety sure the policies and rhetoric of the Bulgarian communist party against Turks would be considered ultra-nationalism by today's standards.

Um, what? Soviets actually suppressed nationalism within their own borders, and there were all kinds of nationalist movements that opposed them from Russian emigrant societies after Civil War to various nationalist movements in Warsaw Pact countries. Again, clearly you are either terribly misinformed or are just trying to bend reality to fit your political views.

There are many variables and explanations to explain that.
But we are talking about the "globalist ideology" of certain people. Not the consequences of global CAPITALISM and its integrated dynamics which are quiet well explained by Marxists that you love to define as globalists...

My beef here is with your revisionism. Your desire to put everything into "my good nationalism" vs "their bad globalism". Thats not how the world works.

That's not what I am saying. At this point, nationalism is definitely a force of good, since it is opposed to governments and organizations that are harmful to Europeans in particular and to the world in general.

I would invite you to read economic history and some fundemental aspects of innovation and growth economics.
You are still trying to paint a black and white world through your biases.

All you did is make up some crazy definitions which have nothing to do with their conventional counter-parts to defend the current governments in Europe which are desperately trying to suppress nationalism.

[fkizz]

Here, we need more immigration and we won't tolerate any xenophobic rhetoric.

Here, we need less emotional drama on state affairs.

Our immigrants here leave anyway to richer countries where they get better pay and better living conditions, so easy to brag about receiving immigrants when they all leave the house and you don't have to deal with it.

Kinda reaping the "humanist cool points" from the efforts of richer countries rather than our own.

[Love Mountain]

Here, we need less emotional drama on state affairs.

Our immigrants here leave anyway to richer countries where they get better pay and better living conditions, so easy to brag about receiving immigrants when they all leave the house and you don't have to deal with it.

Kinda reaping the "humanist cool points" from the efforts of richer countries rather than our own.

And the problem with that is...?

[Mithradates]

Would you like if your neighbour should decide how you should spend your money?

[Cyclops]

Would you like if your neighbour should decide how you should spend your money?

In some circumstances my neighbour does. For example if my neighbour is elected Prime Minister they direct a lot of public policy that spends my taxes. If our fence rots both adjoining property owners have to pay for reasonable repair.

Humans are stronger for contributing to entities larger than themselves or their nuclear families. For example Germany has knit Europe closer together with its courageous alliance with France, and Merkel has kept the EU strong despite sabotage from Russia and the US.

[Mithradates]

The EU does not have fences between neighbors (Schengen Agreement) so if someone opens the gate to let people in from the streets, that will effect the entire EU.
Letting people in while knowing that they are going to end up in your neighbors house and he is the one who will have to pay for them is not helpful.

Macron has a 25% low approval rating, Merkels party had the worst election results since 1949. It seems their vision isnt Europe's vision.
Also the EU is heavily divided and next year's election is going to be a disaster, mainly because how the EU (Merkel and Co.) mismanaged the migrant crisis.

[Heathen Hammer]

In some circumstances my neighbour does. For example if my neighbour is elected Prime Minister they direct a lot of public policy that spends my taxes. If our fence rots both adjoining property owners have to pay for reasonable repair.

Humans are stronger for contributing to entities larger than themselves or their nuclear families. For example Germany has knit Europe closer together with its courageous alliance with France, and Merkel has kept the EU strong despite sabotage from Russia and the US.

And she did such a good job with her courageous (funny how you used that word given how this "alliance" is the most pro-establishment thing imaginable) alliance that UK already left and half of Europe elected openly euroskeptic governments. That wouldn't happen at faster pace if it wasn't for her almost leninist levels of anti-nationalism and ham-fisted handling of refugee crisis, where she dumped millions of potential terrorists and criminals on the taxpayers at their own expense.

[HannibalExMachina]

except, germany and france are the ones paying the most for immigrants, including those from eastern europe. if we were to adopt your mentality, we would simply throw hungary and poland back into the post soviet-pond, after squezing all the EU money back out of them.

people need to start pulling their weight, and stop whining about the money the EU spends by blowing it up their collective asses. or maybe we should send economic refugees back to eastern europe, and stop subsidizing the illiberal democracies there.

[JP226]

except, germany and france are the ones paying the most for immigrants, including those from eastern europe. if we were to adopt your mentality, we would simply throw hungary and poland back into the post soviet-pond, after squezing all the EU money back out of them.

people need to start pulling their weight, and stop whining about the money the EU spends by blowing it up their collective asses. or maybe we should send economic refugees back to eastern europe, and stop subsidizing the illiberal democracies there.

Does this mean we can expect our check for NATO? Thanks.

[Heathen Hammer]

There is no weight to pull. Europeans do not owe anything to refugees and are not in any way obligated to accept them. The only way to handle "refugee crisis" is by enacting sanctions against Israel and Gulf states to force these countries to take them in instead.

[Morifea]

Does this mean we can expect our check for NATO? Thanks.

Don`t know what NATO has to do with all the money the EU is wasting in Eastern Europe... but seems like you americans are becoming desperate in search for money

@Heathen Hammer: Sanctions would only work if the USA were on board and they are rather uninterested about the whole Refugee situation in Europe / Middle East.... Except for ranting about how Europe is burning down and things happening last night in Sweden.
Libanon for examble is already doing alot, but others could help more instead of bombing Jemen back into the Stone Age.

[Diamat]

Um, what? Soviets actually suppressed nationalism within their own borders, and there were all kinds of nationalist movements that opposed them from Russian emigrant societies after Civil War to various nationalist movements in Warsaw Pact countries. Again, clearly you are either terribly misinformed or are just trying to bend reality to fit your political views.

Both dogukan and you are correct. The Soviets both supported and suppressed ethnic nationalism. The Soviet Union comprised of a variety of previously separate identities, which the Soviets tried to suppress through an all-Soviet nationalism. At the same time, the Soviets encouraged nationalism among the people's democracies, such as North Korea. They did this in order to curb US influence in backward places and align those places with the Soviet Union. The Soviets were well aware of the power of nationalism and how it could be used to further Soviet interests.

[Cyclops]

Both dogukan and you are correct. The Soviets both supported and suppressed ethnic nationalism. The Soviet Union comprised of a variety of previously separate identities, which the Soviets tried to suppress through an all-Soviet nationalism. At the same time, the Soviets encouraged nationalism among the people's democracies, such as North Korea. They did this in order to curb US influence in backward places and align those places with the Soviet Union. The Soviets were well aware of the power of nationalism and how it could be used to further Soviet interests.

They did play nationalism cards at the right time, most especially during WWII when Great Russian nationalism was set ablaze in defence of Mother Russia (against the "White Witch" of Germany, another racial and national stereotype). Some of the imagery was sexualised, and may have contributed to the horrific rape culture of the Red Army in late WWII. Eisenstein's "Alexander Nevsky" foreshadows this trend, with a cute story about a Russian rabbit raping a German a fox.

It would be very ignorant to say the Soviets only suppress nationalism, there were periods when "a thousand flowers bloomed in the Soviet Garden", but it is true that separatist national identities were savagely suppressed.

[95thrifleman]

They did play nationalism cards at the right time, most especially during WWII when Great Russian nationalism was set ablaze in defence of Mother Russia (against the "White Witch" of Germany, another racial and national stereotype). Some of the imagery was sexualised, and may have contributed to the horrific rape culture of the Red Army in late WWII. Eisenstein's "Alexander Nevsky" foreshadows this trend, with a cute story about a Russian rabbit raping a German a fox.

It would be very ignorant to say the Soviets only suppress nationalism, there were periods when "a thousand flowers bloomed in the Soviet Garden", but it is true that separatist national identities were savagely suppressed.

The "rape culture" of the red army had more to do with vengeance for what had been done to the civilian population of russia to be honest but the regime did not hesitate to stoke those fires.

[Cyclops]

The "rape culture" of the red army had more to do with vengeance for what had been done to the civilian population of russia to be honest but the regime did not hesitate to stoke those fires.

Yeah a sad story. Certainly the Nazis scum and their evil leader encouraged the German military to debase themselves with crimes against civilians eg through Fuhrer Order 10.

When Johnson says "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" he does not mean all patriots are scoundrels, but that scoundrels clothe themselves in patriotic garb when driven into a corner. Stalin was definitely in the corner in 1941, but he was laying the groundwork for a nationalist drive during his purges years earlier. I think he played his handed brilliantly before and during WWII, with only a few stumbles.

Eisenstein's film is from 1937 or 1938, and Nevsky as the destroyer of the Knights was a good figure to invoke. Not a Romanov, but a noble and revered figure nonetheless and definitely Russian. The Soviets even named a military order after him (not sure when it came in).

Merkel has never looked like condemning the Germans to mass invasion rape and partition as that evil scoundrel Hitler did. He was the Worst. Kanzler. Ever.