It’s all fine, Mrs. Esken. That’s how it will go. We’ll just act as if nothing is wrong. It will all work out fine. Everyone knows that the best solution to problems is to not talk about them.
There’s an old quote by Ferdinand Lassalle, which Rosa Luxemburg liked to cite (and Rudolf Augstein, the founder of the magazine, shortened and quoted without sources): “As Lassalle said, the most revolutionary act is always to say out loud what is.”
Of course, that’s a long time ago and how can a modern SPD leader even remember Ferdinand Lassalle, when Willy Brandt is already far away..
In reality, that’s the core problem of the entire German migration history. Every time a real decision was made, the public had no say. This was the case in 2015, when Angela Merkel “opened the door”but it was also the case before that. Because it was never really openly negotiated, the public was then neatly divided into good and bad, between the options of welcoming everything or, at the price of being counted among the bad, rejecting everything.
Yes, but you really said that. Politics should “not talk too much about the topic of migration, because it’s perceived as a problem.”
Only as a small aside, Mrs. Esken – what do you think your role as a politician is, if not to solve problems? Hallelujah singing and harp playing? One can “get the topic under control”if “we don’t make a fuss about it.”
Super idea. And so very democratic. Because politics, as we know since Frau Baerbock’s statements, has nothing to do with what the voters think. What legitimacy does politics have, then, if not through the voters? Does BlackRock or must the good Lord stand in for it, like in the old days with princes?
Assuming you still have a democratic residue of conviction, the “we”in dealing with problems that affect the whole country can only be the German people, or is there a secret cabinet that decides everything because it’s so much wiser than the masses?
Honestly, the politicians of the last few decades were more like low-flying planes with a self-reinforcing tendency and one would rather not have to imagine how it will go after the coalition of the willing. But the more stupid the available politicians are, the greater their aversion to the common people.
Yes, you’re confirming that, Mrs. Esken. And one can even scientifically prove that the Germans are not as bad as they’re made out to be. How many church communities in the blackest of Bavaria voted for stricter immigration regulations, but then protected their own asylum seekers with teeth and claws? The suspicion underlying your statements would have led to a quick expulsion, even in the SPD, if not as a party of the working class, then at least as a workers’ party, back in the day. But this reactionary, warlike bunch of petit-bourgeois, which is just now, under your leadership, trampling the last remnants of dignity of the oldest German party, probably shares your conviction and thinks of itself as the crown of the world, which is why one would also like to silence everyone else.
Do you still remember New Year’s Eve in 2015 in Cologne? When for months, anyone who even hinted that something might happen was declared a Nazi? It’s not the silence about it that makes the problem disappear, but the talking about it. If someone had reacted at the beginning, namely already in the autumn of 2014, to the problems that were already showing up in the shelters, a lot would have been spared to the whole country. The attacks on women started there and would have probably ended there, if someone had reacted. But it was too important to keep quiet about this problem, because one didn’t want to disturb the “welcome culture”with too much reality and the New Year’s Eve in 2015 just continued from there.
What’s wrong with many people expecting the German borders to be closed for asylum seekers? Left, right, up, down are all EU countries. One simply ignored the German legislation and got the justification from the EU, which doesn’t allow it, of course. By the way, Mrs. Esken, do you know that the Lisbon Treaty, which grants the EU these decision-making powers, was not ratified by a popular vote? It was a treaty because the whole thing failed as a constitution in France, for example – but it was still forced on people.
Yes, that’s exactly the kind of politics that this “we”conducts, which “doesn’t make a fuss about it”should “get it under control.”Honestly, this game has been played for more than ten years and nothing is under control. There are people who have been living in emergency shelters for ten years now. Is that “getting it under control”? The education is degenerating, because no one can handle the many children who don’t speak German. Doesn’t matter, if we don’t talk about it, it will all be fine.
You want “irregular migration”to be “in geordneten Bahnen”(in orderly channels). Another word game, similar to the perversely worded “two percent of the BIP for the military, behind which 20 percent of the federal budget is hidden.”Irregular? Yes, that’s a nice word, which is now also used in all German reports about the USA, but it sidesteps the problem. We’re talking about illegal immigration, not “irregular”immigration. Only: Illegal in orderly channels, that might work for corruption in the EU, but not for immigration, which refuses to be legal.
The point is simply that, to declare this whole illegal immigration legal, there would be no majority. That’s what. Why invent a new word, then? Irregular, of course, so that no one thinks about the fact that something actually unlawful is happening. Yes, dear Mrs. Esken, what do you think if you try to do that in – say – Brazil? Illegally entered? Even funnier will it be if you try to do that in an African state. They won’t find it funny.
Honestly, if there’s one thing that contributes to making a small problem a big one, it’s not talking about it. And especially, every trick to prevent the citizens from participating. Because that way, everyone feels like they’re being pulled over the table and the moment when people could finally agree on something never comes – not even when there are a hundred bans on talking.
But it’s not about not talking about migration problems, have I got that right? Behind that stand so many other things that one shouldn’t talk about: who profits from all the misery, for example. Or why some people are suddenly very welcome when our country is involved in destroying their country. We had that in the case of Syria and now again in the case of Ukraine. Or why, every time someone claims the right to live a decent life in Germany, with security, salaries and pensions that can sustain a life, this moralizing is elevated to the sky. And if only someone mentions that migration contributes to this not being the case (which is still no statement about who does it; but some North African youth are certainly not the ones doing it), the accusation of being racist comes and so on and so on..