Germany the beloved superpower ? - Page 36 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14907320
The Times is celebrating the tech, science, lifestyle and start up city Berlin....

How Berlin became the capital of cool
The Times


But Berlin’s status has not been cemented overnight. It has an astonishing cultural history, which takes in everything from the Bauhaus school of art to Iggy Pop and David Bowie, both of whom called the city home in the 1970s. It a centre of modern art and film. It has a thriving food scene. And it is home to people from all over the world. The city has long drawn young creatives who are attracted by the reasonable cost of living – but it is now drawing families, too.


Image
#14907455
Are there any big German companies that didn't use slave labour from death camps to gain a competitive advantage over civilised nations? Germany should have a special tax where German businesses have to perpetually pay reparations to the rest of Europe.
#14908069
The Economist praises the disappearance of “a patriarchal culture”. But not everyone approves, the report writes about the ‘changing Germany’, disapprovingly suggesting that those who do not approve are ‘more conservative’ and not getting in the swing of new, cool and hip Germany.


The Economist says “Germany becoming more open and diverse, a model for Europe”. Der Spiegel begs to differ radically

APRIL 20, 2018 15:32 6 MINUTE READ

On 12 and 14 April, English magazine The Economist strutted onto the stage to fret for its hour, describing the ‘modern Germany’ in the older article, and using the newer article, presented as “Germany is becoming more diverse and open. It could be a model for Europe“, to sing the praises of its ‘special report’.

“Germany is becoming more diverse, open, informal and hip. (…) Many of the country’s defining traits—its ethnic and cultural homogeneity, conformist and conservative society, and unwillingness to punch its weight in international diplomacy—are suddenly in flux.”

The article goes on to praise Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ‘open door’ policy towards refugees, bringing in 1.2 million new migrants in 2015-16 alone, which The Economist says had “confirmed” the transformation of Germany into a melting-pot.

This, of course, is nonsense. The ‘melting-pot’ metaphor was originally intended to symbolise the exact opposite: the coming together into a homogeneous society of heterogeneous elements within a political unit. Quite apart from the failure to use the metaphor correctly, one does not get a melting-pot if the elements do not mix. Simply adding a large number of people in an existing society, does not make them mix. The Economist labels this segment of its article as ‘promising signals’, which says a lot about the ideas with which it was written. It praises the disappearance of “a patriarchal culture” because the share of working-age women with jobs has risen from 58% to 70%, while one of the ‘promising signals’ it observes is the fact that “Germans are divorcing more and marrying less.”

Meanwhile, the wonderful ‘melting pot’ is characterised by “opening cultural divides“. So not actually melting together, but rather breaking apart, as “the country is grappling with the rise of a more plural society.” Yet The Economist seems unable to grasp the meaning of this, and cynically opts to use migrants as tools for “preserving [German] prosperity“, writing that

“the flow of newcomers to Germany can help cushion the demographic crunch, especially if immigration procedures are streamlined, education is improved to break the tight link between background and results, and the strictly regulated German professions are made more accessible.“

So if you change everything, you can keep things the way they are? That does not seem logical. Neither does assuming migrants are willing to just fit a German mould in order to serve German prosperity. Does The Economist believe they should just adapt and serve? Or is that part of the “more open, fragmented country” Germany is becoming, which requires “rethinking many ingrained habits“?

The Economist‘s special report opens with a highly biased rendition of a news story from January, about aggressive migrants being banned from attending food banks in the German city of Essen because their presence was, rightfully so, experienced as threatening by its long-time visitors.

In the version of The Economist, Essen’s food bank executive Jörg Sartor’s reasoning is warped beyond all recognition, while it carefully removes all references to the broad political support Sartor received: from the Left and from Merkel’s own party. Just Compare the story The Old Continent wrote on the basis of German sources, with The Economist‘s version, and more importantly its conclusion:

“In January a food bank in Essen, an industrial city in western Germany, unwittingly caused a political storm by requiring each new claimant to present a German identity document. Three-quarters of users were foreign, explained Jörg Sartor, the food bank’s boss; surely that was unfair to locals. First came protesters who daubed ‘racist’ on his vans. Then the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party threw its (unsolicited) support behind him. Cameramen and reporters arrived. Other politicians waded in on all sides. Even Angela Merkel gave her verdict: it was ‘not good’ that Mr Sartor had chosen to distinguish between Germans and others. In early April he lifted the ban on foreign users.

The incident reflects a widespread feeling of what Mrs Merkel has called Unbehagen, not easily translated but meaning anxiety or unease.”
A very special report indeed. The German poor and vulnerable are being displaced by migrants and The Economist suggests racism and calls it ‘unease’, uncritically following Chancellor Merkel, while hiding the fact that much of the criticism was aimed at her. “But not everyone approves,” the report writes about the ‘changing Germany’, disapprovingly suggesting that those who do not approve are ‘more conservative’ and not getting in the swing of new, cool and hip Germany. And all that right before writing:

“And rising crime rates and cultural battles like the one in Essen are making society feel more raw. On New Year’s Eve 2015 in Cologne some 1,000 women were sexually assaulted by a crowd made up largely of immigrants. A year later an Islamist terrorist from Tunisia drove a hijacked truck into a Christmas market in Berlin, killing 12.“

Those darn conservatives, disapproving of sexual assault and terrorist attacks. Get with the program, you squares! Isn’t it great society is getting less patriarchal after importing more than a million people from a deeply patriarchal social fabric?

The ‘special report’ ends with a question:

“As the old Germans give way to the new sort, the questions mount. Guntram Wolff, the German director of a Brussels-based think-tank, Bruegel, speaks for many when he asks: ‘Who are we, what kind of a country are we?’“


German publication Der Spiegel however, begs to differ radically. One can argue that their April 19 staff editorial answers The Economist‘s closing question as follows:

“Germany has obviously become a country of immigration – and one that is changing rapidly. And although economists and politicians are fond of emphasizing all the positive aspects of this development – Germany’s aging society, for example, has been an issue for decades – there’s also a large segment of society that is anything but pleased by the development.

These people are asking themselves what their heimat, or homeland, will look like in 10, 20 or 30 years. They harbor doubts that the government is able to solve the problems already arising out from the lack of integration among some immigrant groups. Some fear that German Chancellor Angela Merkel is leading the country toward a bleak future with an aimless immigration policy – a policy that allows migrants to come to Germany and apply for asylum rather than a policy that actively seeks to bring in highly skilled workers. A policy that ultimately means that even those whose asylum applications are rejected are ultimately allowed to stay anyway.”
Under the paragraph called “Swapping out the Germans” it continues:

“At the peak of the refugee crisis in 2015, that many people were arriving in the country within just a few days. (…) Too often, the debate is driven by people more focused on showing off their own worldliness and tolerance than actually addressing the problems. But hopes that the conflicts created through poorly managed immigration might somehow disappear behind the optimism have been dashed.

Large segments of the German population are suffering from a kind of stress relating to identity. Germans without any immigration background in their own families fear that immigrants could strip them of their Heimat, their sense of home.”
A country, peopled by peoples who do not melt, but pass as ships in the night. In which The Economist is but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is hear no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing (*).


https://theoldcontinent.eu/the-economist-germany/

#14951814
Australians also dream about Berlin.....

Why Berlin's vibrant culture is good for business

Berlin has long been a magnet for artists and musicians such as David Bowie and Iggy Pop, who lived in the city’s Schöneberg neighbourhood in the late 1970s. But the German capital - described by former mayor Klaus Wowereit in 2003 as “poor but sexy” - has become Europe’s Silicon Valley

&

“Berlin was always a testing ground for new ideas,” he says. “Berlin has always been a place where you had the mental space and the freedom to test new approaches.“You also had this melting pot - there were always interesting people you could find.”


Image
#14951824
When I think of Berlin, I think of WWII Stalingrad. Scores of spiritually starving people living in the ruins of the postmodern mind. You need only look at the squalor of the bohemian hippies in the video above to see that their aspiration for greatness is irrevocably lost. They use multi-colored trinkets and industrial rags in order to pretend that their individuality matters, but they're the same parochial, small-minded people as their forefathers, only their values and priorities have changed. Values and priorities that are not even their own. They're not allowed to be a people, because they're Germans, and Germans don't exist. Achtung!

They claim that Berlin is 'unique', but it's the same as Amsterdam, Vienna, Rotterdam, France, Madrid, etc. The only thing different is that the devastation of WWII was more complete in Berlin.
#14951851
Berlin today, as a cultural metropolis, is a beacon of freedom for many young people around the world.
Its probably the last western center for liberalism. Thats why since the early 1990ies many artists have flocked to Berlin to experience a new life.

In Berlin, Artists Find a Home, New York Times, 2018

Politically, as a new capital of Germany, since 2000 its a pillar for the European Union. It is committed to prosperity, investments and cohesion for the continent.

[youtube]NUQcAZF_ECU[/youtube]
Last edited by Dr Cosmo on 07 Oct 2018 19:26, edited 1 time in total.
#14954286
Negotiator wrote:The german green party is hopelessly superflous. They have no projects, they have no message, they have no plan. They've given up peace or a better democracy as a goal long ago, around 1992, pretty much a quarter century ago now and half a decade before they ever joined a government.
They are a lifestyle party. You want the benefits of an elaborated lifestyle without a bad conscience cause of climate change. Vote for "Die Grünen" to make up for it. :D
#14993299
Report: Most of the World Has Dim View of US Leadership
Germany retained the highest approval rating for the second year in a row at 39 percent, among the U.S., China and Russia. For its part, China had the second highest approval rating at 34 percent. Russia stood at 30 percent, putting it on “nearly equal footing” with the U.S. for the first time in the history of report which surveyed adults across 133 countries.


:D
  • 1
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
The Popular Vote...

It bores me I agree. In fact, I remember callin[…]

Trump's Dumb Economics

So how's Trump doing on the economy? 1. Budget […]

I don't see why Qatar would take that risk. I'm […]

Part 2 of 3 Which is also a sign of how far t[…]