Germany : The Road to Redemption

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

Germany YES

 

- All hail Germany, who demands austerity from its neighbouring nations when its own post WWII-loans were written off by its creditors

- All hail Germany, who declined immigration for 100 000 people from its neighbouring european countries while opening the door to the rest of the world

- All hail Germany, who has stagnated the wages of its labor to such a degree that people with jobs have to apply to welfare in order to afford housing and food (see HARTZ IV welfare programs)

- All hail Germany, where people are effectively removed from public society when they try to praise their country when it is the only thing left in their lives

 

The land of poets, philosophers and mathematicians is long gone. What is only left is a feeble, desperate grasp onto the waves of materialism and modernity and we are all following them like the good soldiers we are.

 

Messhugger..you funny :D

Germany is raising GDP of EU, this means the economy is getting better ?

 

Oh you silly willy, of course capital has increased. But it's just that the labor gets a smaller share for each year.

 

All you globalist should be happy, the labor pool is not anymore constrained by those pesky things like nations or borders. In the future no one will be able to tell each other apart because all ethnicities, cultures, laws and morals have been intertwined through supranational trade deals. One day you are a gold-miner in Ulaanbaator, the other day you are investment banker in Montevideo, same rules apply to everyone! Now, who will enforce those deals and how you should manage the armies and the police is nothing to worry about, we're thinking about privatizing them and we have mercenaries with their best interests in their hearts protecting private property. Surely it will work, trust us!

[KaineVC]Messhugger I don't think you've thought this through ? Surely what's good for businesses and entrepreneurs is good for workers ?[/KaineVC]

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

Germany YES

 

- All hail Germany, who demands austerity from its neighbouring nations when its own post WWII-loans were written off by its creditors

- All hail Germany, who declined immigration for 100 000 people from its neighbouring european countries while opening the door to the rest of the world

- All hail Germany, who has stagnated the wages of its labor to such a degree that people with jobs have to apply to welfare in order to afford housing and food (see HARTZ IV welfare programs)

- All hail Germany, where people are effectively removed from public society when they try to praise their country when it is the only thing left in their lives

 

The land of poets, philosophers and mathematicians is long gone. What is only left is a feeble, desperate grasp onto the waves of materialism and modernity and we are all following them like the good soldiers we are.

Messhugger..you funny :D

Germany is raising GDP of EU, this means the economy is getting better ?

 

Oh you silly willy, of course capital has increased. But it's just that the labor gets a smaller share for each year.

 

All you globalist should be happy, the labor pool is not anymore constrained by those pesky things like nations or borders. In the future no one will be able to tell each other apart because all ethnicities, cultures, laws and morals have been intertwined through supranational trade deals. One day you are a gold-miner in Ulaanbaator, the other day you are investment banker in Montevideo, same rules apply to everyone! Now, who will enforce those deals and how you should manage the armies and the police is nothing to worry about, we're thinking about privatizing them and we have mercenaries with their best interests in their hearts protecting private property. Surely it will work, trust us!

[KaineVC]Messhugger I don't think you've thought this through ? Surely what's good for businesses and entrepreneurs is good for workers ?[/KaineVC]

 

 

Excellent post! I highly recommend all of you to read it. It's quite insightful and offers a great perspective.

[213374U]

The automatic translation is surprisingly decent later on, although it has hiccoughs at the beginning.

 

"The Europe of the Ultra-Nationalists - if they win, then we will get this* Europe not only in this aspect but in many other aspects, as well. It is the Europe of a common / collective spirit** that we now need, and that Europe has to assert itself with power, if need be. It cannot be***, that those - and I am one of those - who say that in the 21st century, in a globalised 21st century, we cannot solve global problems with nationalism, that they at some point say that we are going to fight, that we prevail in a fight over the others."

 

* As the video is only a snippet and probably quite out of context - he refers to the "Europe of the Ultra-Nationalists" he obviously was talking about earlier.

** spirit of community, commonwealth, collaborative spirit - something like that.

*** He continues the sentence as if he had said the opposite, i.e. the sentence structure is wrong. It seems clear (as far as Schulz can be clear :D) what he means, though.

 

Thanks for the translation. So in the absence of other evidence, we can safely conclude that it's an out-of-context snippet.

 

Not that I would object to German Panzers rolling towards Gibraltar, mind. Could use the exercise...

[Bartimaeus]

Messhugger I don't think you've thought this through ? Surely what's good for businesses and entrepreneurs is good for workers ?

Excellent post! I highly recommend all of you to read it. It's quite insightful and offers a great perspective.

 

 

 

Very funny

Edited September 16, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[Varana]

So exactly where do you get the idea from that he was talking about specific countries? Certainly not from what has been cited from the interview. Schulz himself does not mention any of them (he doesn't talk about countries at all).

And those articles do all the same thing: They translate or paraphrase exactly this part of the interview that's in the video, with special emphasis on the martial imagery, and then go on to assert that's about Poland or the Visegrad countries or whatever.

The program where the interview is from did imply that he meant those countries but not he himself, and his words lead me to believe that the program itself ripped his statement out of context. (Referring to the governments of the Visegrad countries as "ultra-nationalists" is ridiculous in itself.)

I'm not that much of a fan of Schulz, but this whole topic has been swamped with misinformation, hyperbole, hidden and open agendas, false reporting, and so on, and this looks like a prime example of that.

 

"Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia Foreign Ministers that placed a formal protest against his claims"

Source? (Not the articles you cited. That much Polish I know.)

 

Otto and Mieszko: Could you name the chronicler and his work, please? Not doubting he existed, just wanting to check the actual text.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Varana

[majestic]

He wasn't talking about "ultra nationalists" he was talking about Visegrad group countries and he stated that EU decisions was forced on those that don't follow Germany orders in EU.

 

Except he said nothing of the sort, and certainly nothing of it was in the past tense. Varana's translation is servicable enough, as far as that snippet goes, because that is exactly what he said. That they [not necessarily Germany alone] would fight them [ultra-nationalists, inferred most likely to be people like Le Pen or Orban] with whatever options they have at their disposal.

[Rostere]

Germany is evil country.  Their actions over the years have proven it. And,t he fact that Germany has no problem threatening  other European countries to get what they want with violence says everything about them. Their doubkle stand, hypocrist, SJWishness, and nazism is all that needs to be known.

 

 

 

wat

[Bartimaeus]

From what I'm reading about Ibrahim, his work is almost entirely lost, and only exists in small excerpts referenced by later works. Do you have any specific proof that we can see that suggests what you're saying?

[Varana]

Ibrahim is only extant as citations in other works. As far as I could see, he uses "king of Rûm" (Roman king) for Otto, and refers to he various German lands as Saxony, Franconia, etc.

 

I'm quite sure that Widukind of Corvey refers to Otto as king of the Franks and Saxons, king of the Eastern Franks, or Roman emperor. The Latin text is available online to check.

He does use the term "Germania" - in a geographical sense, coming from the ancient Roman terms for geographical entities. The Western Franks (in modern France) are "the Franks living in Gallia", the Pope's envoy follows Otto "from Italia to Germania" (i.e. north of the Alps), and so on. The word "Germans" (Germani or similar) doesn't appear in his work.

 

The various titles (esp. those with "Roman" in them) are often translated as "German" (kings, emperors) because to modern readers, calling medieval German emperors "Roman emperor" sounds odd. But in their time, and that's what's important here, they didn't see themselves as representing a national German entity. They were rulers of German "tribes" like Franks and Saxons, and later on they were monarchs of a realm that claimed to be universal (the "Holy Roman Empire"). That realm included Germany but was not, until the end of the Middle Ages, a German realm.

 

This discussion started with the claim that until rather recently, there was not "a" Germany.

In Otto's time (10th century), the various German tribes north of the Alps became part of a stabilised empire - but that Empire never claimed to be a national German one. The various German "tribes" like (eastern) Franks, Saxons, Thuringians, Bavarians, and so on, formed the core of that empire but didn't think of it as a "German" one. Italians in northern Italy, Czechs in Bohemia, Burgundians speaking Franco-Provençal in Burgundy/Arelat, etc. were equally part of that empire.

Later on, the various tribal dukedoms of Otto's time developed into the patchwork of principalities that medieval and early modern Germany is renowned for. The "Holy Roman Empire", even in its early modern form, never had the intent of being an exclusively German one. During the Enlightenment and esp. after the French Revolution, as the concept of a "nation" came into prominence, overcoming German regionalism took quite a effort (and traces of that are still very much alive).

That's what's meant with "not a Germany" - there were several peoples who spoke variations of the same language and who belonged to very many principalities that swore allegiance to an emperor (rater loosely, in fact).

 

For the purpose of broad generalisation, people often use "Germany" or "German empire" to refer to these German states even during the Middle Ages. But that was not a national state in the modern sense, and not even in the sense that France or England have been much earlier.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Varana

[Bartimaeus]

This reminds me very much of the claim that the (Eastern) Roman Empire was actually called the Byzantine Empire in the time of the Empire...that the Romans started calling themselves "Byzantines" at some point...even though there is zero text that was written during the actual time of the Roman Empire that suggests such, and though modern translations of older works do often have the translator change "Roman" to "Byzantine", deliberate mistranslations for the sake of readability for modern audiences does not make the Empire Byzantine still. Some people will nevertheless argue until they're blue in the face that it was indeed the Byzantine Empire. A pox upon such miscreants and all that.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

Ibrahim is only extant as citations in other works. As far as I could see, he uses "king of Rûm" (Roman king) for Otto, and refers to he various German lands as Saxony, Franconia, etc.

 

I'm quite sure that Widukind of Corvey refers to Otto as king of the Franks and Saxons, king of the Eastern Franks, or Roman emperor. The Latin text is available online to check.

He does use the term "Germania" - in a geographical sense, coming from the ancient Roman terms for geographical entities. The Western Franks (in modern France) are "the Franks living in Gallia", the Pope's envoy follows Otto "from Italia to Germania" (i.e. north of the Alps), and so on. The word "Germans" (Germani or similar) doesn't appear in his work.

 

The various titles (esp. those with "Roman" in them) are often translated as "German" (kings, emperors) because to modern readers, calling medieval German emperors "Roman emperor" sounds odd. But in their time, and that's what's important here, they didn't see themselves as representing a national German entity. They were rulers of German "tribes" like Franks and Saxons, and later on they were monarchs of a realm that claimed to be universal (the "Holy Roman Empire"). That realm included Germany but was not, until the end of the Middle Ages, a German realm.

 

This discussion started with the claim that until rather recently, there was not "a" Germany.

In Otto's time (10th century), the various German tribes north of the Alps became part of a stabilised empire - but that Empire never claimed to be a national German one. The various German "tribes" like (eastern) Franks, Saxons, Thuringians, Bavarians, and so on, formed the core of that empire but didn't think of it as a "German" one. Italians in northern Italy, Czechs in Bohemia, Burgundians speaking Franco-Provençal in Burgundy/Arelat, etc. were equally part of that empire.

Later on, the various tribal dukedoms of Otto's time developed into the patchwork of principalities that medieval and early modern Germany is renowned for. The "Holy Roman Empire", even in its early modern form, never had the intent of being an exclusively German one. During the Enlightenment and esp. after the French Revolution, as the concept of a "nation" came into prominence, overcoming German regionalism took quite a effort (and traces of that are still very much alive).

That's what's meant with "not a Germany" - there were several peoples who spoke variations of the same language and who belonged to very many principalities that swore allegiance to an emperor (rater loosely, in fact).

 

For the purpose of broad generalisation, people often use "Germany" or "German empire" to refer to these German states even during the Middle Ages. But that was not a national state in the modern sense, and not even in the sense that France or England have been much earlier.

 

Wow this has been a very interesting post, Varana how come you know so much about this part of history? Its very fascinating 

Edited September 17, 2015 by BruceVC

[Meshugger]

 

Ibrahim is only extant as citations in other works. As far as I could see, he uses "king of Rûm" (Roman king) for Otto, and refers to he various German lands as Saxony, Franconia, etc.

 

I'm quite sure that Widukind of Corvey refers to Otto as king of the Franks and Saxons, king of the Eastern Franks, or Roman emperor. The Latin text is available online to check.

He does use the term "Germania" - in a geographical sense, coming from the ancient Roman terms for geographical entities. The Western Franks (in modern France) are "the Franks living in Gallia", the Pope's envoy follows Otto "from Italia to Germania" (i.e. north of the Alps), and so on. The word "Germans" (Germani or similar) doesn't appear in his work.

 

The various titles (esp. those with "Roman" in them) are often translated as "German" (kings, emperors) because to modern readers, calling medieval German emperors "Roman emperor" sounds odd. But in their time, and that's what's important here, they didn't see themselves as representing a national German entity. They were rulers of German "tribes" like Franks and Saxons, and later on they were monarchs of a realm that claimed to be universal (the "Holy Roman Empire"). That realm included Germany but was not, until the end of the Middle Ages, a German realm.

 

This discussion started with the claim that until rather recently, there was not "a" Germany.

In Otto's time (10th century), the various German tribes north of the Alps became part of a stabilised empire - but that Empire never claimed to be a national German one. The various German "tribes" like (eastern) Franks, Saxons, Thuringians, Bavarians, and so on, formed the core of that empire but didn't think of it as a "German" one. Italians in northern Italy, Czechs in Bohemia, Burgundians speaking Franco-Provençal in Burgundy/Arelat, etc. were equally part of that empire.

Later on, the various tribal dukedoms of Otto's time developed into the patchwork of principalities that medieval and early modern Germany is renowned for. The "Holy Roman Empire", even in its early modern form, never had the intent of being an exclusively German one. During the Enlightenment and esp. after the French Revolution, as the concept of a "nation" came into prominence, overcoming German regionalism took quite a effort (and traces of that are still very much alive).

That's what's meant with "not a Germany" - there were several peoples who spoke variations of the same language and who belonged to very many principalities that swore allegiance to an emperor (rater loosely, in fact).

 

For the purpose of broad generalisation, people often use "Germany" or "German empire" to refer to these German states even during the Middle Ages. But that was not a national state in the modern sense, and not even in the sense that France or England have been much earlier.

 

Wow this has been a very interesting post, Varana how come you know so much about this part of history? Its very fascinating 

 

 

Well, there's a thing called a book....

[BruceVC]

 

 

Ibrahim is only extant as citations in other works. As far as I could see, he uses "king of Rûm" (Roman king) for Otto, and refers to he various German lands as Saxony, Franconia, etc.

 

I'm quite sure that Widukind of Corvey refers to Otto as king of the Franks and Saxons, king of the Eastern Franks, or Roman emperor. The Latin text is available online to check.

He does use the term "Germania" - in a geographical sense, coming from the ancient Roman terms for geographical entities. The Western Franks (in modern France) are "the Franks living in Gallia", the Pope's envoy follows Otto "from Italia to Germania" (i.e. north of the Alps), and so on. The word "Germans" (Germani or similar) doesn't appear in his work.

 

The various titles (esp. those with "Roman" in them) are often translated as "German" (kings, emperors) because to modern readers, calling medieval German emperors "Roman emperor" sounds odd. But in their time, and that's what's important here, they didn't see themselves as representing a national German entity. They were rulers of German "tribes" like Franks and Saxons, and later on they were monarchs of a realm that claimed to be universal (the "Holy Roman Empire"). That realm included Germany but was not, until the end of the Middle Ages, a German realm.

 

This discussion started with the claim that until rather recently, there was not "a" Germany.

In Otto's time (10th century), the various German tribes north of the Alps became part of a stabilised empire - but that Empire never claimed to be a national German one. The various German "tribes" like (eastern) Franks, Saxons, Thuringians, Bavarians, and so on, formed the core of that empire but didn't think of it as a "German" one. Italians in northern Italy, Czechs in Bohemia, Burgundians speaking Franco-Provençal in Burgundy/Arelat, etc. were equally part of that empire.

Later on, the various tribal dukedoms of Otto's time developed into the patchwork of principalities that medieval and early modern Germany is renowned for. The "Holy Roman Empire", even in its early modern form, never had the intent of being an exclusively German one. During the Enlightenment and esp. after the French Revolution, as the concept of a "nation" came into prominence, overcoming German regionalism took quite a effort (and traces of that are still very much alive).

That's what's meant with "not a Germany" - there were several peoples who spoke variations of the same language and who belonged to very many principalities that swore allegiance to an emperor (rater loosely, in fact).

 

For the purpose of broad generalisation, people often use "Germany" or "German empire" to refer to these German states even during the Middle Ages. But that was not a national state in the modern sense, and not even in the sense that France or England have been much earlier.

 

Wow this has been a very interesting post, Varana how come you know so much about this part of history? Its very fascinating 

 

 

Well, there's a thing called a book....

 

 A book....

 

Yes of course he could have just picked up a book and read all about this just for this debate but his knowledge seems to be more comprehensive and detailed. It seems to me its more of a hobby ?

[Varana]

I teach history.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Varana

[BruceVC]

I teach history.

Thats what I thought, I can see you know what you are talking about

 

You debate from a point of fact and historical context and its refreshing to read your comments 

[ManifestedISO]

I teach history.