• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Europe - The Barbarian Invasion has Begun.

No maxparrish. That was provocateurs taking advantage of fear rather than reality. It wasn't the immigrants at all. It was just plain fear promoted for this reason or that to gain leverage for this arm or that. And, yes, Nazis were the ones evoking ethnic fear for their advantage. People were depressed by the failure of their previous leadership and the conditions of the armistice which raped much of German wealth and infrastructure. So this and that were those. The templates provided by the Nazis were for cleansing and blame on the more or less innocent minorities. Rational options were available except the extremists sabotaged them with Putsches and assassinations. Never repeat Nazis were just given control. They weren't. They stole it.

Your objection is not germane. Bilby suggested that "that the situation today is almost a perfect parallel to the situation then - with the significant difference that the German supporters of National Socialism had the excuse of not having seen where this attitude leads?".

Quite aside from the fact that there is not a parallel to the situation then, there is no evidence that opposition to immigration "leads" to the policies espoused by the Nazis. Those Germans taking the streets to protest Merkel's sacrifice of Germans to the benefit of foreign hordes are not in favor of concentration camps, but in keeping the waves of 3rd world Muslims from squatting in German territory.

One looks forward to the day Germans regain their spine, and defend their own borders.

The Germans who voted for the NSADP were not in favour of concentration camps either. They were merely unconcerned about them - in the beginning, because they seemed an unlikely outcome of voting for Herr Hitler's party; and later because they were for sub-humans and traitors, and Good Germans had nothing to fear from them.

And that's exactly the reason why it's important to be on guard. The Nazis didn't turn up and say "We will establish a totalitarian state with concentration and extermination camps"; they said "We will get rid of these others, who are stealing your jobs and dragging down our nation, and we will make you once again proud to be a citizen of the most civilised nation on Earth!"

In short, they said all the same reassuring and ennobling things that you are saying, about how with strong leadership that would stand up to the threat posed by non-citizens, everyone can become happy and prosperous. It was a lie then; it remains a lie today. But it's no less attractive to those who believe the bullshit than it ever was.
 
Typically left tactics. Kill the messenger.
Bilby, it seems you're shooting the messenger!
Typical response. Attack the messenger when you don't like the message.
Typical. Attack the messenger if he disagrees with with you. A little rich though even by your standards in comparing me to black shirts and nazis.

You aren't the blameless bearer of bad news (ie. the messenger'); you are a reactionary loon who makes ludicrous claims about the impending doom of the West, and you post links to other fascist nutjobs whose views you endorse.

Whining that people are being unfair to you (by 'shooting the messenger') is a transparent attempt to avoid owning your idiotic worldview.
If that is so, I have a huge minority who agree with my philosophy, and they are showing it at the ballot boxes!

That's nice. Too bad for you and your philosophy that they cannot be anywhere near as huge as the majority.
If you notice, anti immigration parties are making big inroads into many EU countries governments that have big influxes of the alien culture of Islam. It's bound to get even more anti muslim politicians elected in future. The general public have no other way to fight back except through the ballot box in the defence of Western culture except to organised vigilantes attacking so called "refugee" camps, which also is growing.

Regardless, the word "huge" was an oxymoron in the context in which it was used. I suggest you look up the words "minority" and "majority" in the nearest dictionary before making similar statements.
 
Your objection is not germane. Bilby suggested that "that the situation today is almost a perfect parallel to the situation then - with the significant difference that the German supporters of National Socialism had the excuse of not having seen where this attitude leads?".

Quite aside from the fact that there is not a parallel to the situation then, there is no evidence that opposition to immigration "leads" to the policies espoused by the Nazis. Those Germans taking the streets to protest Merkel's sacrifice of Germans to the benefit of foreign hordes are not in favor of concentration camps, but in keeping the waves of 3rd world Muslims from squatting in German territory.

One looks forward to the day Germans regain their spine, and defend their own borders.

The Germans who voted for the NSADP were not in favour of concentration camps either. They were merely unconcerned about them - in the beginning, because they seemed an unlikely outcome of voting for Herr Hitler's party; and later because they were for sub-humans and traitors, and Good Germans had nothing to fear from them.

And that's exactly the reason why it's important to be on guard. The Nazis didn't turn up and say "We will establish a totalitarian state with concentration and extermination camps"; they said "We will get rid of these others, who are stealing your jobs and dragging down our nation, and we will make you once again proud to be a citizen of the most civilised nation on Earth!"

In short, they said all the same reassuring and ennobling things that you are saying, about how with strong leadership that would stand up to the threat posed by non-citizens, everyone can become happy and prosperous. It was a lie then; it remains a lie today. But it's no less attractive to those who believe the bullshit than it ever was.

So tell us - in the opposition parties, which has a leader who has written his/her Mein Kampf and spent 13 pages of it denouncing syphilitic Muslims worthy of such measures?

So tell us - what opposition party has held Nuremberg rallies with para-military units, complete with hundreds of thousands of brown shirts?

So tell us - which opposition party favors demanding more land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of the German people and the settlement of their surplus population?

So tell us- which opposition party favors removal of citizenship for historic German populations?

So tell us- which opposition party demands that a ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race?

All these were a part of the NAZI party platform since 1920. THAT was what the German people voted for.

The "danger from the right" mantra has been a fixture of Soviet Communism and the fellow-traveling "progressive" left since before I was born. Long after fascism was dead the drum beaters continued to ascribe every conservative initiative as a "proto-neo-crypto" fascism or Nazism. It was a tiresome and bogus mantra, serving the propaganda needs of communists and fellow-travelers (and still in lavish use in places like Venezuela).

Its the 21st century Bilby. Time to give up 1950s and 60s left rhetoric.
 

My heart goes out to those horrible barbarians you seem to need to persecute...the women and children especially who definitely are not raping the european women. I feel sorry for them because they are driven from their homeland by wars our actions fomented and have no place to run. They go to Europe and meet with even more horrible barbarians than they coped with in their homeland. You simply cannot understand that your side is as sick with hatred as anything going on in the ME. You need to volunteer to help these people...to be around them long enough to begin to understand they are human beings too. You just don't seem to be getting that. My heart goes out to you because you are stuck in a mental rut put in your thinking by very savvy propagandists for the purposes of supporting the war profiteering business.:thinking:
There are refugees yes, and those need our help. But just in case you lead a hermits life with no TV, no newspapers or any other news service, you'd know that the vast majority of so called refugees are not.
Over 80% of them are young men. It's exactly what an unarmed army looks like!
 
Last edited:
The Germans were not anti Semitic per se. They treated the Jews no different to any other people.

It was the Nazis who preached the pure blood of the Aryan, as opposed to every other race, but especially the Jews who they blamed for all the ills of the world. It's all written in Mein Kampf.
It's entirely different today. The only similar theme is that the Jews are still blamed for all the planets ills, but this time it's the still the Jews haters, and practically the whole Arabic world which are new Nazis

I think it's important to understand that Nazism is a variant of fascism and fascism has a given structure. Fascism assumes one's own groups natural perfection. Whenever any evidence of lack of perfection surfaces fascists never do any self-critique. Instead they find something perceived as external (within the country) to blame it on. And the target for this is utterly and completely arbitrary. The Nazis picked the Jews because the Nazis were Christian. But it could have been any group not identified as the core of whatever the fascists identify with. It's also important to realise that this core is completely fluid and arbitrary. Eventually, of course, the blame game will continue until there's nobody left to blame it on. So it's important to understand that the Nazi hatred of Jews would only keep going as long as there were Jews to blame it on. Once they were all gone the target would move on to the next group.

The communist fascist varieties are the most extreme. Pol Pot's Cambodia tried finding the enemy from within until half the country had been killed. It didn't stop until (the very weak) Cambodia was invaded and forced them to stop. USSR under Stalin is another good example. But Pol Pot takes the prize. But similar things goes on in Iran. Did in Libya under Gadaffi, Iraq under Saddam and Afghanistan under the Taliban.

The Nazi movement sprung from the Thule society. The Thule society were a bunch of pseudo-pagan nationalistic mystics. It's leader Sebottendorf was not an anti-semite. When the Thule society went main-stream under the guise of NSDAP it attracted a lot of Christians. This is when the anti-semitism started to emerge, and when Hitler came into prominence in the movement. Sebottendorf came into conflict with Hitler over this (he was a staunch anti-anti-semite) and led to Sebottendorf getting kicked out from the movement he had helped found. And so it goes.
Hitler also tried to rid Europe of Gypsies as well.
 
The Germans who voted for the NSADP were not in favour of concentration camps either. They were merely unconcerned about them - in the beginning, because they seemed an unlikely outcome of voting for Herr Hitler's party; and later because they were for sub-humans and traitors, and Good Germans had nothing to fear from them.

And that's exactly the reason why it's important to be on guard. The Nazis didn't turn up and say "We will establish a totalitarian state with concentration and extermination camps"; they said "We will get rid of these others, who are stealing your jobs and dragging down our nation, and we will make you once again proud to be a citizen of the most civilised nation on Earth!"

In short, they said all the same reassuring and ennobling things that you are saying, about how with strong leadership that would stand up to the threat posed by non-citizens, everyone can become happy and prosperous. It was a lie then; it remains a lie today. But it's no less attractive to those who believe the bullshit than it ever was.

So tell us - in the opposition parties, which has a leader who has written his/her Mein Kampf and spent 13 pages of it denouncing syphilitic Muslims worthy of such measures?
All of the hard right parties in Europe have written policies.
So tell us - what opposition party has held Nuremberg rallies with para-military units, complete with hundreds of thousands of brown shirts?
Many of the hard right parties in Europe have held rallies and public demonstrations. So far, they are not that large. So far.
So tell us - which opposition party favors demanding more land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of the German people and the settlement of their surplus population?
Land is no longer considered the ultimate source of wealth. The anti-immigration hard right parties support repatriating second and third generation migrants to recover the jobs that they have 'stolen'.
So tell us- which opposition party favors removal of citizenship for historic German populations?
All of the hard right parties have removal of citizenship for recent migrants as part of their platform. many favour removing citizenship from the children and grandchildren of migrants.
So tell us- which opposition party demands that a ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race?
Have you never seen a neo-fascist website? All of them do this; it's pretty much their 'thing'.
All these were a part of the NAZI party platform since 1920. THAT was what the German people voted for.
Indeed.
The "danger from the right" mantra has been a fixture of Soviet Communism and the fellow-traveling "progressive" left since before I was born. Long after fascism was dead the drum beaters continued to ascribe every conservative initiative as a "proto-neo-crypto" fascism or Nazism. It was a tiresome and bogus mantra, serving the propaganda needs of communists and fellow-travelers (and still in lavish use in places like Venezuela).

Its the 21st century Bilby. Time to give up 1950s and 60s left rhetoric.
There is nothing unreasonable about being concerned that a situation that actually happened not long ago might happen again. It's not like we are foolish enough to be worried that mass immigration might lead to disaster - something that has not happened in the last couple of centuries.

Fascism never died; it likely never will - a sizable minority middle class people the world over lean towards fascism and the establishment of a police state, which is why it is necessary to have constitutional safeguards to prevent them from voting such things into existence. Try attending a civic meeting and suggesting that the police should not take a zero-tolerance approach to teenagers hanging around in public, and see how many totalitarian loons come out of the woodwork.
 
I think it's important to understand that Nazism is a variant of fascism and fascism has a given structure. Fascism assumes one's own groups natural perfection. Whenever any evidence of lack of perfection surfaces fascists never do any self-critique. Instead they find something perceived as external (within the country) to blame it on. And the target for this is utterly and completely arbitrary. The Nazis picked the Jews because the Nazis were Christian. But it could have been any group not identified as the core of whatever the fascists identify with. It's also important to realise that this core is completely fluid and arbitrary. Eventually, of course, the blame game will continue until there's nobody left to blame it on. So it's important to understand that the Nazi hatred of Jews would only keep going as long as there were Jews to blame it on. Once they were all gone the target would move on to the next group.

The communist fascist varieties are the most extreme. Pol Pot's Cambodia tried finding the enemy from within until half the country had been killed. It didn't stop until (the very weak) Cambodia was invaded and forced them to stop. USSR under Stalin is another good example. But Pol Pot takes the prize. But similar things goes on in Iran. Did in Libya under Gadaffi, Iraq under Saddam and Afghanistan under the Taliban.

The Nazi movement sprung from the Thule society. The Thule society were a bunch of pseudo-pagan nationalistic mystics. It's leader Sebottendorf was not an anti-semite. When the Thule society went main-stream under the guise of NSDAP it attracted a lot of Christians. This is when the anti-semitism started to emerge, and when Hitler came into prominence in the movement. Sebottendorf came into conflict with Hitler over this (he was a staunch anti-anti-semite) and led to Sebottendorf getting kicked out from the movement he had helped found. And so it goes.

The Nazis were able to defend capitalism by using racism of this kind because it was already widespread. Hitler learned his trade from the 'Anti-Semite' mayor of Vienna, and all the people who lived in German-speaking lands back then testify to the Iraeli-like racism that was so prevalent.
Only problem is that Israel is not a racist country. There are Arab members of the Knesst, over 1.5 million Arab/Israeli citizens who are the freest Arabs in the world. There are black Israelis, and every other kind of skin tones.
 
No maxparrish. That was provocateurs taking advantage of fear rather than reality. It wasn't the immigrants at all. It was just plain fear promoted for this reason or that to gain leverage for this arm or that. And, yes, Nazis were the ones evoking ethnic fear for their advantage. People were depressed by the failure of their previous leadership and the conditions of the armistice which raped much of German wealth and infrastructure. So this and that were those. The templates provided by the Nazis were for cleansing and blame on the more or less innocent minorities. Rational options were available except the extremists sabotaged them with Putsches and assassinations. Never repeat Nazis were just given control. They weren't. They stole it.

Your objection is not germane. Bilby suggested that "that the situation today is almost a perfect parallel to the situation then - with the significant difference that the German supporters of National Socialism had the excuse of not having seen where this attitude leads?".

Quite aside from the fact that there is not a parallel to the situation then, there is no evidence that opposition to immigration "leads" to the policies espoused by the Nazis. Those Germans taking the streets to protest Merkel's sacrifice of Germans to the benefit of foreign hordes are not in favor of concentration camps, but in keeping the waves of 3rd world Muslims from squatting in German territory.

One looks forward to the day Germans regain their spine, and defend their own borders.
Will happen come next elections, almost guaranteed that Merkel will be thrown out.
 
No maxparrish. That was provocateurs taking advantage of fear rather than reality. It wasn't the immigrants at all. It was just plain fear promoted for this reason or that to gain leverage for this arm or that. And, yes, Nazis were the ones evoking ethnic fear for their advantage. People were depressed by the failure of their previous leadership and the conditions of the armistice which raped much of German wealth and infrastructure. So this and that were those. The templates provided by the Nazis were for cleansing and blame on the more or less innocent minorities. Rational options were available except the extremists sabotaged them with Putsches and assassinations. Never repeat Nazis were just given control. They weren't. They stole it.

Your objection is not germane. Bilby suggested that "that the situation today is almost a perfect parallel to the situation then - with the significant difference that the German supporters of National Socialism had the excuse of not having seen where this attitude leads?".

Quite aside from the fact that there is not a parallel to the situation then, there is no evidence that opposition to immigration "leads" to the policies espoused by the Nazis. Those Germans taking the streets to protest Merkel's sacrifice of Germans to the benefit of foreign hordes are not in favor of concentration camps, but in keeping the waves of 3rd world Muslims from squatting in German territory.

One looks forward to the day Germans regain their spine, and defend their own borders.

This one rather hopes that the Germans don't regain their spine, given what that spine achieved for them and their neighbours in 1914 and 1939. Nationalism is really not something to encourage; German nationalism doubly so, given their history.
 
Typically left tactics. Kill the messenger.
Bilby, it seems you're shooting the messenger!
Typical response. Attack the messenger when you don't like the message.
Typical. Attack the messenger if he disagrees with with you. A little rich though even by your standards in comparing me to black shirts and nazis.

You aren't the blameless bearer of bad news (ie. the messenger'); you are a reactionary loon who makes ludicrous claims about the impending doom of the West, and you post links to other fascist nutjobs whose views you endorse.

Whining that people are being unfair to you (by 'shooting the messenger') is a transparent attempt to avoid owning your idiotic worldview.
If that is so, I have a huge minority who agree with my philosophy, and they are showing it at the ballot boxes!

That's nice. Too bad for you and your philosophy that they cannot be anywhere near as huge as the majority.
If you notice, anti immigration parties are making big inroads into many EU countries governments that have big influxes of the alien culture of Islam. It's bound to get even more anti muslim politicians elected in future. The general public have no other way to fight back except through the ballot box in the defence of Western culture except to organised vigilantes attacking so called "refugee" camps, which also is growing.

Regardless, the word "huge" was an oxymoron in the context in which it was used. I suggest you look up the words "minority" and "majority" in the nearest dictionary before making similar statements.
Point taken, but that minority is fast becoming the majority as the recent elections in Switzerland have shown.
Gert Wilders is just about poised to become the next Dutch pm next year. Trump in the States is popular because of his anti migration stance.
 
Your objection is not germane. Bilby suggested that "that the situation today is almost a perfect parallel to the situation then - with the significant difference that the German supporters of National Socialism had the excuse of not having seen where this attitude leads?".

Quite aside from the fact that there is not a parallel to the situation then, there is no evidence that opposition to immigration "leads" to the policies espoused by the Nazis. Those Germans taking the streets to protest Merkel's sacrifice of Germans to the benefit of foreign hordes are not in favor of concentration camps, but in keeping the waves of 3rd world Muslims from squatting in German territory.

One looks forward to the day Germans regain their spine, and defend their own borders.
Will happen come next elections, almost guaranteed that Merkel will be thrown out.

How so? The CDU-CSU is currently polling at 35-38%. That's less than they had at the last election (41.5%) but about the same as they had in the elections 2005 when Merkel became chancellor (35.2%), and quite a bit more than they had in the elections of 2009 (33.8%), after which she remained chancellor.

The rightwing AfD is gaining - up to 6-9% in the polls, from just under 5% in the last election.

Most of the remainder goes to parties to the left of the CDU. Hardly a landslide.
 
Credibility check: This is basically from Moscow. Think it's true and not propaganda??
The headline shouts German. I have no reason to doubt it after seeing many similar stories.

You never doubt any information that confirms your biases, do you? We could squeeze the headline in between one about how the moon landing was fake and another one about how Australia doesn't actually exist and you'd still go "well, they must have gotten one right."
 
The headline shouts German. I have no reason to doubt it after seeing many similar stories.

You never doubt any information that confirms your biases, do you? We could squeeze the headline in between one about how the moon landing was fake and another one about how Australia doesn't actually exist and you'd still go "well, they must have gotten one right."
It's sad when one just uses the source of news that agrees only with their ideology.
No idea if there's any left paper there in your location put out by left wing union nut jobs. We have one here with the honest banner of "Socialist Times."
It's normally available on street corners in the city handed out freely.
People who produce and read that think of an ideological world that can't exist.
 
The Demise of Germany

While the pathological altruists of Germany allow their country to be over-run with a Muslim underclass demanding billions in aide, the put-upon German population is ignoring its own needs for economic security. An article in the Christian Science Monitor points out a reality that the Germans could not afford, BEFORE the mass migration.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Euro...ven-Germany-crumbling-bridges-and-aging-roads

COLOGNE AND BERLIN, GERMANY —...Crumbling bridges, lengthy detours, snarled traffic on an aging autobahn: This is the news that has captured headlines at home, raising questions about the state of Germany's infrastructure and its willingness to whip it into better shape.

The concern runs deeper than hardware and frameworks, schedules and scaffolding. Some pessimists are starting to see physical decline as a sign of larger strain on – and vulnerability in – the German economy.

“What we see now is the calm before the storm,” says Olaf Gersemann, who authored the recent book "The Germany Bubble: The Last Hurrah of a Great Economic Powerhouse." It’s a conclusion he says would have raised eyebrows just six months ago, and one that is still mostly falling on deaf ears. “It still doesn’t feel bad, you don’t feel the consequences yet.”

"From the outside everyone thinks Germany is clean, efficient, and everything works well,” says Steffi Klotz as she crosses Cologne's Leverkusen Bridge, a cable structure spanning the Rhine that is part of her daily commute. “I’m sorry to say that’s not the case anymore.”

Her commute pits her daily against Germany's chronic underinvestment. The Leverkusen Bridge was a prime example of Germany’s desperate need for investment in a 2013 government report. Built in the 1960s, it was closed down to heavy traffic in 2012 because of cracks that required immediate repair. It is now under continual construction and patch-up, meaning its six lanes are merged into fewer, backing up traffic for miles.

For Ms. Klotz, that turns a drive that should take 25 minutes into one that regularly takes 90 minutes. It’s so bad that she says the traffic reports on Monday mornings don’t even bother with back-ups that are less than five kilometers (three miles). Traffic is what is on the minds at dinner tables, and late arrivals, not the norm in Germany, are easily forgiven.

“We lose time every day because of our infrastructure,” she says.

Jurgen Berlitz, from the German automobile association ADAC, says that in in 2014 there were 475,000 traffic jams totaling 960,000 km (600,000 miles), up from figures in 2013 that showed 415,000 traffic jams totaling 830,000 km (515,000 miles), with a sixth of roadways congested daily.

That’s because some 46 percent of bridges, 41 percent of streets, and 20 percent of highways are currently in need of repair, according to a report by the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) in Berlin. That group is headed by Marcel Fratzscher, the author of another new book called "The Germany Illusion."

...The IMF, in its global outlook report in October, had singled out Germany for “much-needed public investment in infrastructure.”
industry leaders worry that the country is slipping, especially in western Germany where business booms but infrastructure lags. ...

“It is now high noon to say we have to defend our infrastructure. It’s also a question of efficiency, and the German way of thinking and doing,” says Volker Treier, managing director of international economic affairs at of the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce.

...But at the same time, Germany has been constrained by its own drive to balance its budget, and a population not interested in infrastructure spending. As Mr. Treier puts it: “We see ourselves in a strait-jacket.”

Germany underwent painful reforms in the 1990s, when it was considered the “sick man of Europe,” to get where it is today. There is a prevailing attitude among Germans that now is the time to be rewarded for that sacrifice. In addition, there is a deep resentment about the role the EU is playing in German affairs, pushing the country to act in foreign conflict or pay for the troubles in other European nations.

... what he says is a population not willing today to pay for the projects of tomorrow. They disproportionately represent the so-called Wutburger movement, after a German word that translates into “enraged citizen.” The Wutburgers have been leading voices protesting big infrastructure projects in Germany.

“They want the country to stay the way it is,” he says. But, he stresses in his book, if Germany stays as it currently is, it is destined to decline.

Gernot Sieg, a transportation expert at the University of Muenster, says that the public wants money put toward pensions or schools, and not toward big public works or infrastructure projects. “Most politicians talk not about efficiency but about fairness and social spending,” he says.

In fact, the investment plan Ms. Merkel announced in November has already been scaled back to 7 billion euros over three years, representing just 0.1 percent of GDP annually. And federal investments are just part of the solution, as states play a major role in the infrastructure within their jurisdictions.

And when a single bridge is shut down, an entire chain of production is impacted, says Kurt Bodewig, who headed the government commission in 2013 tasked with prescribing remedies for Germany’s infrastructure woes.

“That is a big problem for an industrial country like Germany,” Mr. Bodewig says. “It calls into question our place in the world, where we have good production, qualified workers, but not a functional transport system.”

The dilemmas of the welfare state is not guns or butter; but infrastructure or social benefits for Germans or welfare for millions of immigrants.

They can afford one, just maybe two, but not three.

Bye bye Germany.
 
Credibility check: This is basically from Moscow. Think it's true and not propaganda??
The headline shouts German. I have no reason to doubt it after seeing many similar stories.

That's the same logic used by Theists regarding their holy books. The sheer number of stories doesn't add anything to their plausibility.

- - - Updated - - -

While the pathological altruists of Germany allow their country to be over-run with a Muslim underclass demanding billions in aide, the put-upon German population is ignoring its own needs for economic security. An article in the Christian Science Monitor points out a reality that the Germans could not afford, BEFORE the mass migration.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Euro...ven-Germany-crumbling-bridges-and-aging-roads

COLOGNE AND BERLIN, GERMANY —...Crumbling bridges, lengthy detours, snarled traffic on an aging autobahn: This is the news that has captured headlines at home, raising questions about the state of Germany's infrastructure and its willingness to whip it into better shape.

The concern runs deeper than hardware and frameworks, schedules and scaffolding. Some pessimists are starting to see physical decline as a sign of larger strain on – and vulnerability in – the German economy.

“What we see now is the calm before the storm,” says Olaf Gersemann, who authored the recent book "The Germany Bubble: The Last Hurrah of a Great Economic Powerhouse." It’s a conclusion he says would have raised eyebrows just six months ago, and one that is still mostly falling on deaf ears. “It still doesn’t feel bad, you don’t feel the consequences yet.”

"From the outside everyone thinks Germany is clean, efficient, and everything works well,” says Steffi Klotz as she crosses Cologne's Leverkusen Bridge, a cable structure spanning the Rhine that is part of her daily commute. “I’m sorry to say that’s not the case anymore.”

Her commute pits her daily against Germany's chronic underinvestment. The Leverkusen Bridge was a prime example of Germany’s desperate need for investment in a 2013 government report. Built in the 1960s, it was closed down to heavy traffic in 2012 because of cracks that required immediate repair. It is now under continual construction and patch-up, meaning its six lanes are merged into fewer, backing up traffic for miles.

For Ms. Klotz, that turns a drive that should take 25 minutes into one that regularly takes 90 minutes. It’s so bad that she says the traffic reports on Monday mornings don’t even bother with back-ups that are less than five kilometers (three miles). Traffic is what is on the minds at dinner tables, and late arrivals, not the norm in Germany, are easily forgiven.

“We lose time every day because of our infrastructure,” she says.

Jurgen Berlitz, from the German automobile association ADAC, says that in in 2014 there were 475,000 traffic jams totaling 960,000 km (600,000 miles), up from figures in 2013 that showed 415,000 traffic jams totaling 830,000 km (515,000 miles), with a sixth of roadways congested daily.

That’s because some 46 percent of bridges, 41 percent of streets, and 20 percent of highways are currently in need of repair, according to a report by the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) in Berlin. That group is headed by Marcel Fratzscher, the author of another new book called "The Germany Illusion."

...The IMF, in its global outlook report in October, had singled out Germany for “much-needed public investment in infrastructure.”
industry leaders worry that the country is slipping, especially in western Germany where business booms but infrastructure lags. ...

“It is now high noon to say we have to defend our infrastructure. It’s also a question of efficiency, and the German way of thinking and doing,” says Volker Treier, managing director of international economic affairs at of the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce.

...But at the same time, Germany has been constrained by its own drive to balance its budget, and a population not interested in infrastructure spending. As Mr. Treier puts it: “We see ourselves in a strait-jacket.”

Germany underwent painful reforms in the 1990s, when it was considered the “sick man of Europe,” to get where it is today. There is a prevailing attitude among Germans that now is the time to be rewarded for that sacrifice. In addition, there is a deep resentment about the role the EU is playing in German affairs, pushing the country to act in foreign conflict or pay for the troubles in other European nations.

... what he says is a population not willing today to pay for the projects of tomorrow. They disproportionately represent the so-called Wutburger movement, after a German word that translates into “enraged citizen.” The Wutburgers have been leading voices protesting big infrastructure projects in Germany.

“They want the country to stay the way it is,” he says. But, he stresses in his book, if Germany stays as it currently is, it is destined to decline.

Gernot Sieg, a transportation expert at the University of Muenster, says that the public wants money put toward pensions or schools, and not toward big public works or infrastructure projects. “Most politicians talk not about efficiency but about fairness and social spending,” he says.

In fact, the investment plan Ms. Merkel announced in November has already been scaled back to 7 billion euros over three years, representing just 0.1 percent of GDP annually. And federal investments are just part of the solution, as states play a major role in the infrastructure within their jurisdictions.

And when a single bridge is shut down, an entire chain of production is impacted, says Kurt Bodewig, who headed the government commission in 2013 tasked with prescribing remedies for Germany’s infrastructure woes.

“That is a big problem for an industrial country like Germany,” Mr. Bodewig says. “It calls into question our place in the world, where we have good production, qualified workers, but not a functional transport system.”

The dilemmas of the welfare state is not guns or butter; but infrastructure or social benefits for Germans or welfare for millions of immigrants.

They can afford one, just maybe two, but not three.

Bye bye Germany.

Christian Science Monitor? Seriously?? :laughing-smiley-014
 
May I suggest you broaden your outlook on life just a tad and look also at others opinions besides what's dished up by your favourite left leaning media?
 
May I suggest you broaden your outlook on life just a tad and look also at others opinions besides what's dished up by your favourite left leaning media?

Reality is not a matter of opinion.

"Christian Scientist" is an oxymoron; and CSM is written by morons for morons.

No media outlet has access to its own facts; and I care nothing for their opinions, because I use the facts - gathered from any source, and confirmed against reality, logic, and reason - to compose my own.

You should try it some time. I find it very telling that you assume that I, like you, get my opinions ready made from my choice of media; It never occurs to you that the reason I disagree with you is not because we source our opinions from different propaganda mills, but rather because you are getting your opinions that way, but I am not.
 
While the pathological altruists of Germany allow their country to be over-run with a Muslim underclass demanding billions in aide, the put-upon German population is ignoring its own needs for economic security. An article in the Christian Science Monitor points out a reality that the Germans could not afford, BEFORE the mass migration.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Euro...ven-Germany-crumbling-bridges-and-aging-roads

COLOGNE AND BERLIN, GERMANY —...Crumbling bridges, lengthy detours, snarled traffic on an aging autobahn: This is the news that has captured headlines at home, raising questions about the state of Germany's infrastructure and its willingness to whip it into better shape.

The concern runs deeper than hardware and frameworks, schedules and scaffolding. Some pessimists are starting to see physical decline as a sign of larger strain on – and vulnerability in – the German economy.

“What we see now is the calm before the storm,” says Olaf Gersemann, who authored the recent book "The Germany Bubble: The Last Hurrah of a Great Economic Powerhouse." It’s a conclusion he says would have raised eyebrows just six months ago, and one that is still mostly falling on deaf ears. “It still doesn’t feel bad, you don’t feel the consequences yet.”

"From the outside everyone thinks Germany is clean, efficient, and everything works well,” says Steffi Klotz as she crosses Cologne's Leverkusen Bridge, a cable structure spanning the Rhine that is part of her daily commute. “I’m sorry to say that’s not the case anymore.”

.....

Christian Science Monitor? Seriously?? :laughing-smiley-014

Bilby,

Perhaps given your location and/or lack of experience, you don't know that the CSM has always been a well respected publication (one of the sources those of us in American forensic debate often used, along with the NYTimes, etc.).

From the Britannica :http://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Christian-Science-Monitor

The Christian Science Monitor,
“Christian Science Monitor, The” [Credit: © The Christian Science Monitor. All Rights Reserved.]American daily online newspaper that is published under the auspices of the Church of Christ, Scientist. Its original print edition was established in 1908 at the urging of Mary Baker Eddy, founder of the church, as a protest against the sensationalism of the popular press. The Monitor became famous for its thoughtful treatment of the news and for the quality of its long-range, comprehensive assessments of political, social, and economic developments. It remains one of the most respected American newspapers. Headquarters are in Boston.

Of course seriously.
 
Back
Top Bottom