Another excellent spergout by Fox on Discord, in the form of loose notes.
– against banning cash
– wanting to increase european police and intelligence cooperation to combat criminality and terrorism. An “european FBI” is the goal. Information from various agencies in various european countries should be pooled and centralized.
– against rich countries paying for the mistakes of poor ones :x:
– against illegal immigration, wanting to control it, pro european borders :x:
– prolongation of sanctions against russia
– “our europe represents/stand up for the values of the west”, intesifying “transatlantic friendship”, europe should contribute more to this “partnership” in the future
– “common european military forces” will be established by 2030 (!)
Note that this is the party that was in power during the “refugeee crisis” of 2015 and 2016. They’re the ones who caused the 2 million non-white mass immigration! Just imagine the level of chutzpa it takes to run with the complete opposite a few years later. Same with the first marked point. Germany (together with a few smaller states) paid for the southern european countries several years ago. “We are strongly against the things we did half a decade ago” Note how the increased criminality and threat of terrorism produced by the immigration non-policy is now used as an opportunity to increase control and create european control structures. They want to destroy what remains of the partner states’ souvereignty (intelligence and military). The goal is a “united states of europe”, though this is not explficitly states (the “european FBI” statement comes quite close to it though). One thing that is striking is the promise to simultaneously do one thing and its opposite.”we will wash your car and keep it dry”
-they want to “unify” economic growth and environmental protection (“We are reconciling economic growth and the environment”)
– “our europe respects the cultural diversity of the regions and nations”, but it also supports inter-european work migration and youths from various european countries travelling all over the place (for free), as well as european student exchange programs, learning other european languages + all the other centralization stuff, like european standards for all kinds of things
– “We are open to progress and simultaneously maintain/foster traditions and customs”
– they write about respecting languages, cultural rights and identities and ethnies and minorities in their native lands while writing about europaization (both institutional and demographic, ie by moving workers and students around en masse) and few years after ushering in non-white immigration of previously unknown proportions
Further points not mentioned earlier, then the list of examples will continue:
– they want a new attempt for a trade treaty with america
– they called “smart homes” an important project (!)
– europe has to become “even faster” at “digitalization”, thence they ‘re working on an european 5G network
– a (mandatory) point on “combatting every form of antisemitism”. Founding a “european pact against antisemitism”, adopting the “working definition” of antisem!tism from an organization called IHRA and trying to make all member states adopt it, too. Calling !srael “an important partner connected in friendship”.
– “open markets and fair rules form the basis of free trade”
– “We want electricity to remain save, clean and affordable. Europe-wide expansion of low-emission, resp. renewable energy is of particular importance to us”
– “with the national implementation of the EU-copyright guideline, we will bring together plurality of opinions, author protection and legal certainty”
A further point not mentioned before: They’re are against uploadfilters, but for paywalled content
In none of these cases does the program mention trade-offs between or inherent incompatibilities of opposites
– “the european police agency has to become an european FBI. Naturally, operative police authority will remain in the hands of the member states”
It’s like saying “You’ll have to pay for X, but it won’t cost you anything.” Or: “Look, I’ll take your car, but I won’t allow your mobility to be restricted/I’m against restricting your mobility.” Or: “Look, I’ll take half of your money, but you won’t lose anything because the other half will remain yours!” Needless to say, whoever promises you one thing and its opposite is trying to sell you something, and is convinced that you’re an idiot. You’ll note that in (almost) all the aforementioned examples, there’s one thing they will do, and another they claim will be left unaffected or promise to “respect” or “stand for”. It’s like saying “You’ll have to adhere to rule X from now on, but you’re free nevertheless.” Why is this? It means not acknowledging the effects of one’s own programs (= intended actions).
Why should someone do that? Because he knows that his program his not in the other’s interest. That’s why things that follow automatically from the explicitly stated goals have to be denied, no matter how ridiculous that denial may be. It is very difficult for most kind people to fathom that someone is truly trying to trick them, thus giving them an opportunity to avoid that realization is a very effective strategy, since they will gravitate towards any piece of evidence, however ridiculous/meaningless/inconsistent, that lets them view the other side as essentially good-willed. (The same applies to normie-like people.) What the conman does is he artificially widens the space of interpretative possibilities (mind you not the space of plausible/reasonable/consistent interpretative possibilities), thereby allowing those hesitant to adopt interpretations that include malicious intent to actually avoid adopting such interpretations.
Note: The short version of their program is available in several different foreign languages: russian, turkish, spanish, french and hebrew lol
– they want english as a second “language of government” (Verwaltungssprache)
– they want to make foundations, clubs and various other associations europe-wide
– making research done with at least 50% european grant money “open access”. In the very next sentence they say that intellectual property protection and “right to use” will not be affected by that (!)
– pro 5G, which they want to install in “major european transport axes”. Their goal is to have 5G in vast areas.
– optical fiber and 5G networks to be financed with european money where national funds aren’t sufficient (!)
– against “discrimination” based on race, “sexual preference”, “gender”. They the EU to financially support NGO’s who work against discrimination even more. They want the concept of “holistic diversity” to be implemented in workplaces in all europe.
The funny thing is that this party is supposed to be “liberal” (in the old sense of the word), and “freedom-loving” – they call themselves the “free democratic party of germany”.
– they think that gay marriage larping “must” be acknowledged as geniune marriage in all EU member states.
– more and europe-wide privatization of railway transportation
– pro “digital agriculture” and “Genome editing” (like that using “CRISP”)
– one unified EU admission procedure for herbicides (!)
– stronger central bank (or european banking authority), for some reason this “banking union” is seen as pro free market (?)
– more independent central bank (lol)
– they want the EU to join the EMRK (“European Convention on Human Rights”)
– they say that rule of law requires protecting minorities (?)
– they say that the EU cannot allow member state to “curtail” or “erode” the right of minorities, arguing that not even democratic majorities can change “basic rights”. That’s the game of “Let’s just declare our ideas as basic rights so every act of non-compliance with our ideas can be construed as the violation of basic rights”. Again, do note that this is how “liberalism” and “free democracy” looks like.
– they say: “group-based hostility against humans like racism, antisemitism, xenophobia, islamophobia, misogyny or homophobia must be fought resolutely on all levels”
– they say that freedoom of expression and freedom of assembly are fundamental rights, so demonstrations of “LBGTI” (whatever) “must” be allowed to take place unhindered throughout the whole union. Again, this point is specifically aimed at eastern european states that don’t comply with the latest anti-human agenda
– further, they say that restrictions on “educating” about “the life of homosexuals” “must not” be allowed anywhere in the european union
– the EU “must be a space in which discrimination against sexual identity and gender identity is impossible”
– they want the EU to make member states reduce “discrimination” of women, and “the restriction of self-determined development of women through old-fashioned role models and obsolete role attributions must be questioned, reflected and discussed in all areas of life, in oder to change it” Again, where’s the freedom to adhere to such “role models” and “role attributions”?
Of course, it is misleading to use the word “discuss” when one is certainly not interested in discussing anything. Note that this is the party that adversizes with “schools need the ABC and the WLAN” (seriously). Now, those two parties, the cdu and the fdp form the “traditional” right side of the german political spectrum. This isn’t news to anyone who hasn’t lived under a real or metaphorical rock the last decade or so, but the “right” side of the mainstream political spectrum is hardcore cultural marxist – leftist – globalist. There is no conciliatory tone, no compromise, no acceptance or tolerance for alternative views when it comes to leftist ideological tenets – the tone is very authoritarian and totalitarian. “must”, “not allowed”, “all forms of”
Further common points of these parties: – pro climate change stuff, pro 5G, “smart homes” etc
– they claim that countries like romania, poland and hungary questioned or removed some of those “basic rights” (kicking the ((soros)))-funded and run NGO out of hungary was given as example), and demand that “we europeans” be given the means to intervene more effectively in such situations.
– some further control mechanisms (obviously aimed at eastern european countries) are demanded. Monitoring the “human rights” situation in a country and cutting off money and disabling voting rights in case of lack of compliance.
– they want “control commitees” that watch over a member state’s intelligence agencies (!)
– they want to restrict illegal immigration but attract legal “qualified” immigrants and non-EU students
– they want a “systematic recruitment” of specialists from non-EU countries, going so far as to create a “european specialist/skilled worker agency” and “european training centers” in non-EU countries (!)
– they want to carry the “minority” agency beyond the borders of the european union (!)
– they want a free trade agreement with the usa
– the same demanding attitude towards russia that the cdu showed
– they want to pull ukraine, moldavia and georgia closer into the EU’s orbit
– re middle eastern conflict: They criticize iran, saudi arabia and turkey (and say that their expansionism must be kept in check), but don’t mention one specific country with even a word
– pro european army and pro increasing military spending to 3% of GDP (germany is currently at 1,2%, and other large european countries are below 3% as well)
This was awful. I’ll just mention a few points from the three “leftist” parties (plot twist (not really): all parties are leftist)
– pro mandatory women quotas and other measures to increase the number of women in some domains. Unsurprisingly, they use the apparent fact that the percentage of women graduating from the “gymnasium” (something like college) is slightly higher than that of men in germany to argue that “women are more qualified than man on average”. (note: there’s data that in 2015, 53,8% of women but only 46,5% of men between 20- 29 in germany had obtained the “abitur”. The question to which degree foreigners influence this is quite relevant, seeing that german boys outperform german girls on the PISA tests)
The phenomenon of women’s “intelligence”/test scores forming a narrower bell curve than that of men was already known decades ago. This means that if you decrease the selectiveness of an institution, the share of men (which is higher the more selective the institution is) will decrease (relative to that of women), until the latter is higher. Things will rebalance once the lower half of the bell curve men are included as well (https://www.boeckler.de/cps/rde/xbcr/hbs/wsi_gdp_bildung_20170208_grafik_02_rdax_823x419.jpg, here we see that the share of men was slightly higher in 1991 when only about 23% of the younger (half) generation had an abitur (compard to about 50% in 2015))
– they say that every human, regardless of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” has “the universal right to be respected, acknowledged and live a life free of discrimination and violence”
If someone has an universal right to be respected and acknowledge, that anyone else stands under universal obligation to respect and acknowledge him. Respected for what? Acknowledged for what? Thinking of respect and acknowledgement as independent of any achievement is a quite leftist thing to do.
– they want “gender-changing surgeries” to be acknowledge europe-wide
– they “condemn” “reparative” and “conversion” therapies for “lgbiths”
– “we campaign for the europe-wide ban on so-called “conversion” therapies. Homosexuality is not a disease. The so-called therapies in part inflict severe mental and bodily harm on humans.” This is a whole different level. They want to ban attempts to heal homosexuality.
– pro european army (yes these are the “social democrats”)
– “in some EU-member states there are so-called “anti-propaganda” laws which promote discrimination and hate against [enter a bunch of lgbler terms], by, for example, not allowing talk about sexuality and homosexuality in class any more.”
So simply ignoring this topic in school is viewed as promoting discrimination and hate! They feel attacked for not being allowed to indoctrinate children any more. Think about it, what kind of creature can reasonably construe this as an attack? And note that the “any more” creates the false impression that talk about these topics had always been normal (or that students themselves have a desire to talk about these things). Isn’t it fascinating how fast leftists switch to the “this has always been normal”-frame once one of their pet projects get cancelled? Outside of that, they’re the most rabid anti-tradition/customs perpetual revolution people imaginable (hyperbole).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: All german parties are gay, except the AfD which is only half gay and polls at only 10-13% because of that.