The Greens Embrace Bans on Speaking

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”

— From Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from the German portal FOCUS online. The translator’s comments are in square brackets:

In the refugee debate, Red-Green wants to change the language

Asylum debate in the Bundestag. “There are no social tourists,” say the Greens. The Union says there shouldn’t be any “bans on speaking”. The discussion becomes a lesson in what else can be said about an emotional topic.

Voice control — up to now this was known from the satellite navigation in the car. This offer is now also available in the German Bundestag. It comes from the Greens, the Left Party and the SPD. However, the Union finds the attempt to introduce “bans on speaking” on asylum issues threatening. In any case, it will change the debate about what can still be said.

Debate about refugees: “There are no social tourists”

Julian Pahlke has been active in sea rescue for almost six years. On the rescue ship Iuventa he fished refugees from the Mediterranean. He and his volunteers saved 14,000, reports the activist. Now the Green sits in the German Bundestag, no longer as a research assistant to Claudia Roth, but as a member of parliament. Today Parliament is debating asylum and immigration.

And Pahlke says: It doesn’t matter whether someone is fleeing bombs from Ukraine or Syria. “There are no social tourists,” because: “no one leaves their country for a bit of social assistance.” There is also no illegal immigration, because there is no legal immigration from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan either. The “pull factor” is wrong — “part of anti-refugee baiting.” Later he calls out to CDU MP Philipp Amthor, who is astonished to be informally addressed by him: “It’s right to put you in the right-hand corner.”

Adolf Hitler had striven for “Sonderweg” [Special Path/Unique Path]

Talking about “pull factors” is “scientifically wrong,” Says Hakan Demir from the SPD. If there were a material incentive for refugees, “then all Ukrainians would have come to Germany immediately.” “For you,” he calls out to the MEPs from the lectern, “a tolerated person is a pull factor; for us, it’s a chance on the job market.” The traffic light* government’s new opportunities-residence permit provides a secure residence status for rejected asylum seekers who have not been deported for years.

Helge Lindh, who was directly elected to the Bundestag for the Social Democrats in Wuppertal, says that a German “Sonderweg” is the language of the National Socialists. Adolf Hitler, as the influential Bielefeld social historian Hans-Ulrich Wehler explained, sought for the Germans’ a “special path” that then led to the abyss. [Where do they think this path of unlimited migration by hostile people of hostile cultures will lead to? Shangri-La? The mass grave for the native Germans more likely.]

The Union chalked up a German “Sonderweg” to the traffic light government in the Bundestag today, because all other countries in Europe are closing their borders, while Germany is the only country that wants to open them further. Lindh says the Union’s language on migration issues is “indecent” and it is dishonest to claim that rejected asylum seekers “are parasites”. [Then what do you call someone that lives off the hard labour of others? A politician?] However, nobody in the Bundestag said that, nobody from the Union, nobody from the AfD.

“Nobody leaves their country to be treated like a second-class person here,” says Gökay Akbulut. The parents of the left-wing deputies applied for asylum in Germany in 1990, their daughter completed her social science studies with a master’s degree and is now a member of the Bundestag for the Mannheim Left. The Union, says Akbulut, is “fishing in brown waters” and: “Those who talk to racists only make them stronger.” [I’m sorry, but who’s using racist language here?]

Green attacks CDU for choice of words

Katrin Göring-Eckard is Vice President of the German Bundestag and a Protestant Christian. The Greens have been discussing asylum issues for years. She says that anyone who, like Friedrich Merz (CDU), talks about “social tourism” is doing Vladimir Putin’s bidding. “Push and pull” are “imaginary factors”. This “is like an imaginary illness; that’s nonsense.” Göring-Eckard refers to Angela Merkel’s refugee policy, including her “We can do it”. She says: It is “completely normal politics that you create things.” [Especially when your aim is the utter destruction of Germany and the West in general for a retarded ideology that is deadly to ALL LIFE on this planet.]

Josip Juratovic is a devout Roman Catholic Christian, says the Croatian who came to the Neckar area in 1975 after primary school. The Social Democrat is the last speaker today. His last sentence reads: “Jesus Christ was the most prominent refugee.” [How could Jesus have been a refugee? His place of birth was part of the Roman Empire and Egypt was part of the Roman Empire. It’s like “fleeing” from one EU Country into another and believing you’re out of the woods. You’re STILL in the EU.]

Giving a different spin to the refugee discussion about language use is a large-scale socio-political experiment from the Left. The chances of this succeeding are not even bad, especially since there are journalistic helpers. In talk shows like “Anne Will” or the “Presseclub” recently, they like to draw attention away from the currently increasing number of refugees and towards the language in which they are discussed.

With “bans on speaking” the ground is prepared for a “paradigm shift” in migration policy

From this point of view, the “influx”, the “mass flight”, the “gateway”, “illegal immigration”, the “special path” and the “pull factor” are what the Greens leader Ricarda Lang on “Anne Will” calls “Right-wing narrative” that strengthens the AfD.

In this way, the debate is raised to a meta-level, which has two advantages for the traffic light government, which is dominated by red and green in this field: There is then no longer any need to talk about the hard facts, the number of asylum seekers and the renewed occupation of gymnasiums at the expense of children’s physical education classes. And: Those who issue “speech bans” (Amthor) have already culturally prepared the ground for the “paradigm shift” in migration policy envisaged by the coalition agreement.

Afterword from the translator:

No one leaves their country for a bit of social assistance? Apparently yes; otherwise one would flee to the neighboring country and not use the shuttle service across the Mediterranean through a myriad of safe countries. The flight ends in the lavishly equipped social systems, and the social benefits are many times higher than the monthly wages/social benefits in the home countries.

You can’t solve problems with language bans, but you can hide reality.

And of course, most of the people come to Germany to get social assistance, which they don’t get in their countries of origin, because there are no social benefits in their countries. All of this is available for free, without anything in return and without having to work for it. Very few are real refugees who had to leave their country because of war and political persecution. Of course, these people come because of the boisterous invitations from Western politicians and the high social benefits. In addition to this, one or the other side income from partly regular activities bypassing the tax or by selling “recreational” powders and tablets to the natives… Life is good there. ANYTHING CAN BE SAID ABOUT THE GREEN BUT NOT THAT THEY DON’T DO WHAT THEY SAY — THEY DELIVER.

Annalena Baerbock: “We have to be prepared, there will not be one, ten, hundred, but thousands of flights, there will be eight to ten million refugees, and we will take them all in.”

*   “Traffic light” coalition government:
    Red:   Social Democratic Party
    Yellow:   Free Democratic Party
    Green:   Alliance90 / The Greens
 

6 thoughts on “The Greens Embrace Bans on Speaking

  1. Is there a non-violent way to flush these communists out of the public arena?
    And how were they allowed to get there in the first place?

    • What is it with you bloody Brits and your unicorn beliefs that truly think you can get rid of communists without getting your hands dirty? You have become so civilized that you no longer will protect yourselves when danger is close and like sheep, will be slaughtered because you didn’t believe the wolves when they said they were going to eat you all. To think that you used to be lions, now you are passive sheep more interested in fooooooseball than your own survival, you bloody deserve what is coming and you deserve it good and bloody hard.

  2. Well, that pull factor thing has a bias to it. : the stupid refugees think that twice the income of , say, a police officer in their country is a lot. When in Germany,they quickly learn that what they get is nothing to live a life of luxury. That goes for myself, too : I am doing fine here, but could not afford a vacation in Switzerland or Norway where everything coasts twice as here.

  3. So the Greens want us to become the Third Monkey who ‘speaks no evil.’ Of course, the Greens will decide what is evil (hint, that which disagrees with them).

  4. That rug Green Annalena , decided to bring 1000 Afghan “refugees „ per month , !!beacuse they suffer, she didn’t ask nobody’, good luck with Afghans , they are aggressive, most dangerous Muslims, about energy crises??, where the spoused to live ! Without electricity!!, who will be feed them ! , so on top of this all crisis, now Afghanistan. Beautiful, gute Nacht Deutschland ..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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