The Green-Antifa Synergy

The following video shows excerpts from a Green Youth rally in Germany in the summer of 2017, not long before the September elections. Two Green Party leaders, Cem Ozdemir and Katrin Goering-Eckardt, were in attendance. Their faces are circled in the screen-cap above. Also circled is a logo with the Antifa (“anti-fascist”) flag — the event was obviously a joint enterprise for the Green Party and the Antifa groups.

Listening to these people speak, it’s quite clear that “climate” is very much a postmodern religion. They speak with at least as much self-righteous zeal as the most fervent evangelical preacher.

And it’s not just that they’re true believers, but also that they’re earnestly convinced that they know best for everyone; that they must force everybody else to do or not do certain things. Implicit in that belief is the demand that if others can’t easily be made to do what their climate religion requires, then stern muscular well-armed men must be delegated the job of MAKING them obey. And if that fails, well, the stubborn unbelievers will just be quietly eliminated from society, for the good of us all.

In other words, it’s just like Islam.

MissPiggy, who translated the video for subtitles, notes which parts she left out when she made the excerpts:

I cut out all the other stuff they want: free contraception, legalized pot, and what the younger ones said about the police. Then Cem Ozdemir had to retort about how the police are actually good (damage control).

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

00:00   CHANGE THE WORLD, BEFORE OTHERS DO. (August 2, 2017)
00:07   LIVE: CAMPAIGN KICK-OFF with Cem Ozdemir & Katrin Goering-Eckardt
00:15   Thank you very much, Fabian, and thank you to all the people from FYG for being here.
00:19   We really love fighting together with you
00:22   in this election and all together for a better Europe, for more solidarity in Europe.
00:32   Exactly, so now for our next point, we want to go a little deeper into the content,
00:36   our emphasis, topics, challenges, chances, and hopes
00:40   for the upcoming campaign. That’s why I am totally excited to ask Katrin Goering-Eckardt
00:46   and Cem Ozdemir, the Green Party Candidates, to come forward.
00:52   We’re only successful if you are a part of it. We need you to bring the topics to your people —
00:57   in school, during internships, or your place of employment.
01:01   Whenever you are out and about, get into conversations and talk about our topics. Try to be
01:06   persuasive and inspire so that more people will be enthusiastic about our aims.
01:11   Well, first of all, Hello to everyone. I am so happy to be with you, the Green Youth, and to be
01:15   part of this campaign kickoff. What I would like to say fits very well with what we just heard.
01:20   One of the key points for us, for Katrin, for myself, the entire party,
01:24   and for you as well is most certainly the topic of Europe. We do not believe that
01:29   the current problems, beginning with climate change, the fight against terror
01:33   or the fight for a fairer world, can be solved better by nation states alone.
01:38   We would be more successful if we all work together,
01:41   a half a billion people. That’s how we are in Europe.
01:44   People who work together, join forces and then in consensus
01:48   make a difference in the world. In that respect,
01:51   for us this important Federal election can also seen as a vote for Europe.
01:56   We are deciding about what kind of Europe we want. Whether or not returning to only
01:59   being nation states is the better solution.
02:02   Certainly the international dimension is a part of that. When we speak of
02:06   climate change, we can even feel the effect somewhat,
02:09   but climate change causes effects in other countries
02:13   that are far more drastic then here in Germany. Crop failure,
02:18   consequences from heavy rainfall, drought and so forth.
02:23   For any “Green”-thinking person who is deeply convinced about
02:28   ecological goals, that same person is almost always someone who
02:32   stands for equality internationally — those things automatically
02:35   go together. So logically the fight for a fairer world has to
02:38   do with fighting against climate change.
02:41   And logically we fight for a world in which a person is not judged
02:44   by where they come from, but for where we want to go.
02:47   So much for the topic of Europe. Let’s take this as an opportunity
02:51   To move the discussion further. It’s not enough
02:54   for us to just fix the symptoms of the problem of cars.
02:58   We of the Green party need to be the ones talking about
03:01   the future of mobility in this campaign. We’ve been laughed at about our plans for
03:04   the future of mobility. Our Resolution 2030 requires that all new vehicles must be
03:09   emission-free by 2030. We see the British want the same thing by 2040.
03:14   The French also aim for 2040. The Norwegians want to do something similar.
03:18   We’re in a very good position with our resolution and I think it’s good that the Green Party
03:23   is the driving force behind this debate about emission-free mobility in the future. To conclude,
03:27   I would like to say, as someone from Baden-Wuerttemberg, not only
03:31   did we invent the automobile, but we also invented the bicycle
03:35   200 years ago. For us mobility is not just about cars,
03:39   but about public transportation and the bicycle.
03:42   There hasn’t been any good bicycle politics for 200 years,
03:45   so it is about time that changes in order for people to be able to move
03:49   from point A to point B. Nationally as well as across Europe, and emissions-free.
03:55   We would like to tackle that together with you in the next government.
03:59   Thank you, Cem. Jamila, please tell us
04:02   what you think the Green Youth are fighting for in this campaign. —First of all, thank you
04:05   for the introductory statement. I would just like to add
04:10   a really special aspect that was mentioned in our campaign presentation.
04:16   At the moment we are experiencing the tendency for authoritative answers
04:20   to be used to deal with our current problems in society,
04:24   and it is getting stronger. Especially concerning Europe,
04:28   as Fabian just mentioned. Right-wing parties are surging
04:31   in popularity. Here in Germany since 2015,
04:35   with the increase of refugees coming to us from the global crises,
04:40   the right has massively exploited problems that have arisen
04:45   by externalizing them. They say we can protect ourselves
04:50   from problems happening in Germany by closing ourselves off. They say these problems
04:55   are brought to Germany by people who come from abroad. It is totally important
04:58   for us as the Green Youth, as well as the Green Movement,
05:01   to make it clear that these answers are wrong,
05:05   and that they even produce violence. Last year alone (2016)
05:08   there were over 3,750 attacks on refugee facilities —
05:12   just out of hate for people. Buildings were set on fire
05:17   with the aim of hurting others. At the same time,
05:21   there are many Islamists committing crimes and murders.
05:25   So we have to fight against these authoritarian conditions and use the Federal Election Campaign
05:33   to give the people other answers. We need to show them that there are global answers. We also need
05:39   to work on social issues and decide how we want to live together.
05:42   This should be an inspiration for people
05:45   to get involved in politics and to fight for their own interests.
05:49   We need to enable them to be advocates for themselves
05:52   and their own interests. We shouldn’t leave the field open to the right or the Islamists.
05:58   We need to get people involved and make democracy livelier. This is an important point that we need
06:05   to place emphasis on. That is our goal when we take to the streets. Young people are interested
06:15   in making this world a better place. That’s what we want to do with you in the coming weeks,
06:23   and I am totally optimistic that we’ll do a good job.
06:26   For that we are going to need a lot of motivation.
06:29   So I hope we can get you all to join us when we take to the streets.
06:33   Now we are going to start with our topics.
06:36   As I said earlier, we are discussing priority topics, and the first one is climate.
06:40   Our motto is: Change the System, Not the Climate.
06:44   We are fighting against climate change, the climate catastrophe.
06:47   We say we’re the last generation that can stop it. So that’s why we want to tackle this with you
06:52   and show up everywhere. In the trenches, in parliament, etc. Katrin, could you tell us
06:56   what your main points are concerning climate change and why we fight against it?
06:59   That’s right. It’s just as you said, we are the first generation
07:02   that is feeling the effects of climate change, and the last generation that still has a chance
07:06   to change it. Today someone published a premature letter of apology addressed
07:11   to our children and grandchildren which said that
07:14   everything else was far more important than climate.
07:17   This means the climate crisis will make this planet inhabitable.
07:21   It means we won’t be able to maintain
07:24   our living standards. And that really means US. Not only will future generation end up
07:28   paying for our lifestyle, which Moritz said previously, but many people
07:33   pay those costs today. And they pay these cost bitterly when
07:39   the rain forest is cut down, when they’re unable to make a living, when floods and droughts happen,
07:52   and the result will be more climate refugees.
07:56   That’s why the climate problem is an existential problem
08:00   for humanity and the planet. The planet doesn’t care if Mr. Trump denies the climate crisis
08:07   or whether Mrs. Merkel, Mr. Gabriel and Mr. Schultz don’t want to do anything about it.
08:12   The planet doesn’t care, but for us to continue to live on the planet — it does matter.
08:17   As Cem referred to it earlier, we are right in the middle of a huge crisis in Germany.
08:22   Climate protection and mobility belong under the same roof
08:26   in order to work together and not against each other.
08:29   They don’t care about the health issues of people, and actually they don’t care about the future of
08:35   the automobile industry, either. No one would have ever imagined that it would be the Green Party
08:40   that suggests making the automobile industry more competitive worldwide
08:44   by making our cars emissions-free. This needs to happen,
08:48   and happen pretty damn quick. Cars are climate-killers. Environmental protection, my dear friends.
08:54   I want every one of us to be able to answer the question:
08:58   “Why should I vote Green?” This vote is about the existential
09:01   problem for humanity, and the direction we decide to go
09:05   will be made on September 24th. No other party will cover
09:10   this issue with as much passion as the Green Party.
09:14   No other party will bring about real change. Only we can do that.
09:19   That’s what we want and what we will do. That’s why you need to vote Green.
09:22   We need to talk about mobility networks.
09:25   We need to talk about how public transportation, train networks,
09:30   car sharing, bicycles and walking become
09:35   the alternative. All of these thing belong together for us. And not just for those
09:39   living in the city. Even those living outside cities should know
09:42   that it won’t be possible for every family to have two or three cars in the future.
09:46   In the future we will have totally different mobility.
09:52   I agree with some things, but the rest I see a little differently. I don’t believe forbidding cars
09:56   is the answer, as if to say “we don’t drive that car anymore”, then everything is great.
10:00   Just as an example, so when the guy who owns a Porsche Cayenne
10:05   finds out he can’t drive with it in the city, he will just add a Tesla to his collection.
10:09   Meanwhile, another family that had to save ten years
10:14   for their small car ends up with nothing. Sure, we still have to
10:19   force people to no longer drive diesel cars, but I would rather
10:23   create the conditions where everyone just hates driving a car
10:27   by making parking more expensive and making train travel free.
10:31   This would make it far more comfortable
10:34   to use public transportation. We need to make using a car an inconvenience.
10:38   Right now it is more convenient
10:41   and comfortable to use your own car, and that has to stop. It has to more convenient
10:45   and comfortable to use public transportation and travel networks.
10:49   We need to support this, and that is why we stand for free public transportation.
10:53   For us it is clear: this is a national election and we want a good result.
10:57   However, for us politics is not just something
11:01   that happens in parliament, it is something that happens in the streets,
11:05   in the trenches, and that’s why we need to mobilize.
11:08   Take to the streets and show how many we are and that we are fighting for change.
11:11   That is for us especially important.
 

22 thoughts on “The Green-Antifa Synergy

  1. “stern muscular well-armed men must be delegated the job of MAKING them obey. And if that fails, well, the stubborn unbelievers will just be quietly eliminated from society, for the good of us all.”

    This is by way of being calumny. Because I have observed Greens in various countries over decades. The great importance of feminism incl. female Green membership among them is evidence enough that any appeal to male strength/violence would be (and is) ruled out by them.
    Greens are the first to fund anti-(physical) violence training in Germany for little boys so as to advantage little girls’ superior verbal/psychological violence.
    Greens typically resent any male authority figure.
    After all, Unabomber Ted Kazcynski wrote a good appreciation of the university-educated Progressive psyche in his manifesto at the time.

    So please distinguish them from Antifa. Greens do not need unofficial male street power, they already have the German police and army. Not to mention their russophobe war mongering (which disqualifies them as Leftist altogether)

    On the topic of climate change: I suppose it is a tragic success of the Koch Bros propaganda in CONUS that the US alt-right incl. this website, while paying lip service to the Enlightenment incl. Science (esp. Voltaire’s great comment on Islam), has become climate denialist. The root of it will be the alt right’s hatred of any and all Government, esp. Big Government, such as is necessary to bring down greenhouse gases globally.

    The fact that US banks or Al Gore may profit from carbon trading is not related to the truth or falsity of physical facts: either the Arctic is melting down (it is) or it is not. Or am I supposed to believe that all the NASA satellite data is faked because US “congresscritters” voted to fund those instruments, to the great libertarian disgust (Taxation is Theft) of Ayn Rand aficionados? (NB: did you know Ayn took govt. welfare before her death?)

    Having said which, the Green opposition is just as deluded: note in the video how Greens promote hijra to/white genocide in Europe without considering that every Third Worlder who gets into Germany starts emitting greenhouse gases at a high multiple of what he emitted in his home country: I have read that the figure for Ethiopia is a factor of 80.

    Greens also want to keep fossil fuels in the ground but refuse the nuclear weapons for deterring future enemies who may just want to invade and dig up those fuels.

    • So I guess the Antifa logo on the banner is just total coincidence. They must’ve googled some flag image and liked this one. Lol. Ever heard of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”? Who cares if they’re going to slice eachother’s throats afterwards, changing society comes first.

    • Climate denialist? That’s us.

      Does that include a skepticism as to whether a massive mega-government bureaucracy of fines and fees, administered, as usual, by tenured, unaccountable bureaucrats and set up by science-lite heads of state, will actually benefit any living being on the planet?

      Take, for example, the massively, expensive, massively counter-productive restoration programs of the Environmental Protection Agency. You’re assuming that setting up a humongously-expensively, massively-intrusive mega-government program will, through sheer inertia, actually produce some benefits. More likely, these boondoggles will simply drain off surplus production from effective economies, making it difficult or impossible to actually adapt to changing environmental conditions.

      The Chinese, of course, and other advancing economies outside of Europe will negotiate enough exemptions for themselves that the negative effects will fall totally on North American and European economies. Or, they’ll simply ignore the restrictions altogether.

      As you pointed out, obliquely, the largest factor by far in environmental pollution is the increase in populations and the transfer of people from the vastly-polluted third world to the welfare states of the West. By all accounts, most third-world countries with any significant population (courtesy of western aid in food and medicines) are huge garbage dumps.

      The polar bears may be stressed (and I’m not happy on that, as my dog reminds me very much of a large polar bear), but the largest stress by far on non-domestic animals is the relentless expansion of farmlands and human habitation. Much more effective than a carbon tax would be for the government (US, in my case) to stop all foreign assistance, particularly humanitarian assistance. Let the populations of countries depend on their own productivity.

  2. ‘Resolution 2030’

    Interesting choice of title.

    I wonder if there is UN money or influence here.
    The UN’s Agenda 21 is now agenda 2030 Sustainable Development.

  3. Funny how the Greens and “Anti-Fascists” flock together – and neither faction has any idea what the definition of Fascism is!

    Liberals of all kinds seem to think that “fascists” are conservative, Christian, “right-wing” extremists – or pretty much anyone who doesn’t agree with their ideas – when in reality “… true Fascism, at its core, is the view that every nook and cranny of society should work together in spiritual union towards the same goals, overseen by the state. “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State”, is how Mussolini defined it. Mussolini coined the word “totalitarian” to describe not a tyrannical society but a humane one in which everyone is taken care of and contributes equally. It was an organic concept where every class, every individual, was part of the larger whole. The militarization of society and politics was considered simply the best available means toward this end.” (from “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg – and excellent read!)

    The total irony here is that Hitler was a vegetarian, environmentalist, Gaia-worshipping Greenie who wanted to take over the world to bring all people under his will and command “to make a better world” …

    Hmmmmm…. who does that sound like?? #GreenParty #Antifas

  4. A question or two about umlaut orthography…

    At the very beginning of this video we see the slogan ANDERN WIR DIE WELT, BEVOR ES ANDERE TUN! (Let’s us change the world before others do it!). On top of the first A is an umlaut, but in the rest of the video this umlaut is hidden behind a (fig?) leaf in the foreground, as if an umlaut were a woman’s ‘awrah, which must not be exposed to public view; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_parts_in_Islam .

    To represent an umlauted vowel when umlauts are not available, you write an “e” after the vowel. This is seen under the Antifa logo in the hashtag #weltaendern (#worldchanging), where the “ae” stands for an umlauted lowercase “a”. So are umlauts not allowed in hashtags? Who is the twit who ordered that?

    And speaking of umlauts, the “O” in the name Cem Ozdemir should be spelled with a big fat umlaut (and the forename Cem is pronounced “jem”); see
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cem_%C3%96zdemir .
    I am told that Turkish is even more umlaut-happy than German is.

    • The leaf placement was surely an accident, as “Andern” as an imperative verb doesn’t parse as would “Ändern”. What would it mean – “Let’s different the world”? Gibberish, you see.

      It wouldn’t surprise me if umlauts aren’t yet incorporable in hashtags. Unless Twitter or whatever wants to go full Unicode. Not all users’ systems can deal with that sort of thing worldwide, I imagine. I don’t use social media, really, so have no direct experience.

      • I just checked into both hashtags. If you click on #weltaendern, it brings up the exact same twitter account as in #weltändern. (Both versions are used in their timeline).
        Perhaps they want to keep everyone happy in their green new world, those who are besotted with Umlauts, and those who are not. Yes (yawn) they want to “change the world” which translated into German would be “die Welt verändern”. But if you want the same meaning in a short hashtag, you would simply use the 2 versions at the beginning of this comment.
        PS: Scrolling through their timeline, I see lots of group selfies (naturally) and hashtags in English, such as #spreadyourlove, #GoBoldly etc. and there is an ad telling you how to get rid of belly fat. OK, I get it. The idea is to go boldly (into the world) and spread your love (vigorously) so that you can get rid of your belly fat.

        • As to belly fat, it used to amuse me a little bit that ‘Abnehmen’ was such an apparently hot topic on German internet nodes like Yahoo.de years ago, so much so that it was deemed worth a top-level subject heading in those days. I’m not sure if that’s still the case, but it always seemed odd to me.

    • yes, Mark.And we often mock turkish language by adding Umlaute where they do not belong, say speaking of turkish culture, we often put ” Kültür” meaning: there is no such thing.

  5. Quote: “And it’s not just that they’re true believers, but also that they’re earnestly convinced that they know best for everyone; that they must force everybody else to do or not do certain things. ”

    Human-caused global warming is scientific consus. Therefore, one can, by democratic decision, force everybody to do or not do certain things.

  6. Please read this article: “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature” by John Cook et al, Environmental Research Letters 8 (2013) 024024, http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. Among abstracts (of peer-reviewed papers, that were climate related; 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’) expressing a position on AGW (anthropogenic global warming), 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the study, the authors (of the study) invited authors to rate their own papers. Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

    In Germany, the “Federal non-smoking act” has introduced a smoking ban for the following public places and facilities:

    1. in federal institutions and the constitutional bodies of the federa government,
    2. in public transportation,
    3. in passenger stations of public railways.
    See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_in_Germany#Federal_smoking_ban

    Please read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking
    Quote: “The health risks of second-hand smoke are a matter of scientific consensus.” Therefore, scientific consensus can justify laws (agreed by democratic decision) that force people not to do certain things. It is not just a catchphrase.

    • “The health risks of second-hand smoke are a matter of scientific consensus.”

      Sure they are. So what are these virtue-signaling academics planning to do about all the radiation going through our bodies from outer space?? Maybe another “scientific consensus” that it’s bad and we’re doomed?

      “Scientific consensus” is an oxymoron. Real scientists don’t settle on any hypothesis until it’s been thoroughly proved. Einstein was a good example of one who refused to “settle”.

  7. My first thought is that Miss Piggy (thank you for the translation) should have left in the part about free pot. You have to be a pothead to tolerate the mind-numbing repetition of the same non-supported platitudes and empty slogans. For example, we have to overcome national boundaries and all people have an effect by working together. When did people work together, especially across national boundaries. What they really mean is, give complete, unqualified power to unaccountable, international bureaucracies who issue expensive and meaningless restrictions and regulations. By purest of coincidence, the most powerful and influential of the international power-wielders dump hoards of money into antifa, the greens, NGOs supporting unlimited immigration and the dissolution of national identity.

    Free pot will serve as a deadener, enabling people to sit through hours of mindless glop heard at green rallies. Of course, the quality of free pot will rival the quality of government-provided health care and education, perhaps making it necessary to use the stronger stuff available only on the black market. Listening to Katrin is like listening to the Socialist representative-elect, Ocasio-Cortes…someone whose mouth is in high gear, completely bypassing the brain.

    Of course these people are going to use force to back up their demands: any sort of reasoning, cause-and-effect or the calculation of trade-offs is completely foreign to them. Their only hope, like Stalin in Russia and the Stalinists of the captive East European countries, is to suppress any knowledge of the disasters overtaking the countries for which they are responsible.

  8. ““Scientific consensus” is an oxymoron.”
    I concede that to you. On the other hand, every skydiver opens (or tries to open) his parachute before hitting the ground. He does that, because he believes in two hypotheses:
    1. Gravity has accelerated him to a velocity of approximately 200 km/h.
    2. Hitting the ground at a speed of 200 km/h is deadly.
    If he is a real scientist he will never settle to these hypotheses. But he will open his parachute.

    If the majority of the electorate bets that the 97% of the papers expressing a position on AGW (anthropogenic global warming) are right (in endorsing the position that humans are causing global warming), they have the right to open the parachute. You have no right to force the majority to bet that the remaining 3% are right. Please note that global warming will boost tropical diseases.

    The Green party is just trying to win the support of the electorate. This is permissible in a democracy.

  9. “Real scientists don’t settle on any hypothesis until it’s been thoroughly proved.”
    Yes, but 97% of the scientists believe that it (the position that humans are causing global warming) is thoroughly proved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.