Auf die Frage, wer wann das Mobiltelefon erfunden hat, antworten viele: „Martin Cooper in den frühen 70er Jahren.“
Tatsächlich wurde das erste Mobiltelefon vom sowjetischen Ingenieur Leonid Ivanovich Kupriyanovich entworfen. Und das geschah bereits in den 50er Jahren.
Unmittelbar nach seinem Abschluss an der Moskauer Höheren Technischen Schule. N. E. Bauman Leonid Ivanovich begann seine Arbeit in einer geheimen Einrichtung. Wie andere Institutionen dieser Art hieß es damals einfach „Briefkasten“.
Es war strengstens verboten, irgendjemandem zu erzählen, was die Briefkastenmitarbeiter taten, daher ist immer noch nicht klar, ob Kupriyanovichs Erfindung beruflich verantwortlich war oder ob er sie in seiner Freizeit tat, da es sich um sein Wundergerät handelte , schrieb Leonid Ivanovich bereitwillig auf den Seiten verschiedener Zeitschriften und Zeitungen. Obwohl
der Wissenschaftler seine Erfindung ständig verbesserte, wurde
die Veröffentlichung von Kupriyanovich plötzlich eingestellt Ein Mobiltelefon in den frühen 50er Jahren. Und die sorgfältige Arbeit trug bald Früchte . 1957 wurde das LK-1 geboren
, und seine Reichweite betrug 20 bis 30
Kilometer Das Telefon, das er 20 Jahre später vorführte, war nicht viel leichter als das sowjetische und funktionierte nur innerhalb von zwei Kilometern. Kupriyanovichs Gerät hatte natürlich keine Tasten wie Coopers Telefon, war aber mit einem Wählrad und Kippschaltern ausgestattet Das Mobilteil war separat daran angeschlossen, aber für die damalige Zeit war es völlig logisch. Darüber hinaus benötigte das Telefon des sowjetischen Ingenieurs überhaupt keine Kommunikation. Von dort aus war es möglich, alle Stadtnummern anzurufen und eingehende Anrufe von jedem Gerät zu empfangen. Sowohl von einem Festnetztelefon als auch von einer Telefonzelle aus
nahm Kupriyanovichs Telefon nach und nach an Größe und Gewicht ab und erreichte schließlich die Parameter moderner Geräte. Das Telefon wog 70 Gramm und lag leicht in der Hand.
1960 demonstrierte Leonid Kupriyanovich sein Telefon Telefon bei VDNKh
Das Gerät bleibt jedoch neben vielen anderen technischen Innovationen unbemerkt. Doch nach der Ausstellung verschwinden Veröffentlichungen über Kupriyanovichs Mobiltelefon von den Seiten gedruckter Veröffentlichungen.
Nachdem die Veröffentlichungen in der Presse über Kupriyanovichs Gerät eingestellt wurden, hatte der Ingenieur plötzlich ein Auto „Wolga“
Es gibt Versionen, dass Kupriyanovich im Gegenteil an der Arbeit an „Altai“ beteiligt war
. Viele Dokumente gelten immer noch als „streng geheim“.
It feels so, so good to be back. And, as usually happens upon returning from a brief internet break, there is no end of things to write about.
The main thing is the second assassination attempt against Donald Trump, just nine weeks after the first. A very strange man named Ryan Wesley Routh allegedly hid in the bushes with a rifle while the forty-fifth President was playing golf in West Palm Beach yesterday afternoon. He got off several shots before the Secret Service returned fire. He later fled and was arrested. There will obviously be much more to say about this in the coming days.War Crimes Against Sou…Cisco, Walter BrianBest Price: $24.99Buy New $25.25(as of 01:32 UTC — Details)
A secondary, more amusing matter, is the resignation of that enormously irritating EU Commissioner Thierry Breton. This is the man best known for the threats he sent to Elon Musk last month, after Musk dared to organise a Twitter space with Trump. As I noted earlier, Breton has long been loathed even within the Eurocracy as an egotistical self-promoter. His resignation comes after Ursula von der Leyen asked Emmanuel Macron to nominate somebody else for his post. The most hilarious thing is that Breton posted his resignation directly to Twitter – the website that he believes is a grave threat to European democracy, but from which he cannot disentangle himself, because it is also such a great source of attention for mediocre losers like him.
There are other matters too, but before I can get to any of them, I must get this piece on the changing politics of mass migration in Germany off my chest. This is the most important issue facing Europe right now – more important than the folly of the energy transition, more crucial even than the fading memory of pandemic repression.
For nearly ten years, migration has felt like one of the most intractable problems in our entire political system. However crazy the policies, however contradictory and irrational, there was always only the towering mute wall of establishment indifference. It felt like the borders would be open forever, that we would have to sing vapid rainbow hymns to the virtues of diversity and inclusivity for the rest of our lives.
Suddenly, it no longer feels like that. Over the past weeks, a perfect storm of escalating migrant violence and electoral upsets in East Germany have changed the discourse utterly.
The cynical among you will say that none of this matters, that the migrants are still coming, that our borders are still open, and of course that’s true – as far as it goes. But it’s also true that there’s an order of operations here. A lot of things have to happen before we can turn return to a regime of normal border security, and I suspect they have to happen in a specific sequence: 1) Migrationist political parties have to feel electoral pressure and taste defeat at the ballot box first of all. 2) Then, as the establishment realises they are up against the limits of their ability to manipulate public opinion, the discourse around mass migration will have to shift, to deprive opposition parties of Alternative für Deutschland of their political advantage. Specifically, the lunatic oblivious press must begin to question the wisdom of allowing millions of unidentified foreigners to take up residence in our countries. This will then open the way for 3) the judiciary to revise their understanding of asylum policies and begin to interpret our laws in more rational, sustainable ways.33 Questions About Ame…Thomas E. WoodsBest Price: $2.91Buy New $9.99(as of 07:05 UTC — Details)
In Thüringen and Saxony, we have already had the electoral defeat of 1), and we will soon have more of it in Brandenburg. As a consequence of 1), we are now seeing some powerful glimmerings of 2). This is very important, because as the press expands the realm of acceptable discourse, a great many heretofore tabu thoughts and opinions are becoming irreversibly and indelibly conceivable.
Ten years ago, diversity was our strength, infinity refugees were our moral obligation and there were no limits to how many asylees we could absorb. Since August, not only Alternative für Deutschland but also that offshoot from the Left Party known as the Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht, the centre-right Christian Democrats, a substantial centrist faction of the Social Democrats, and many others beyond whatever “the extreme right” is supposed to be, agree that migration is in fact an enormous problem. They also agree that our moral obligations to the world’s poor and disadvantaged are finite, and that there are indeed clear limits to the number of asylees Germany can support. What is more, they are saying all of these things in the open.
—
To understand what is happening and what is at stake, we must review the dynamics of mass migration to Europe. They go something like this:
First, the European Union cannot effectively stop migrants from the developing world at its own borders. The reasons – whether the Eurocrats can’t, or they won’t, or they don’t care, or they don’t know how, or they haven’t been sufficiently incentivised – don’t really matter.
What does matter, is the fact that the failure of of the Eurocracy to limit migration is gradually undermining the credibility of the EU itself. This is because nation states are much better at border security than international bureaucratic behemoths. Should a major EU member state decide that it has had enough of mass migration and elect to close its borders, the migrant pressure on other EU states would increase.
These other states would then have a powerful motivation to take a similarly hard line, and there would be a chain reaction – a race to the bottom, in which EU nations strive to outcompete each other in disincentivising migration and sealing their borders against asylees. A sufficiently fierce reaction could substantially undermine the authority of the EU itself, and would certainly spell the end of the Schengen Arrangement.
Germany, despite all its recent crises and setbacks, is still the dominant industrial nation of the EU, and also its most populous state. By keeping its borders open and enticing migrants with generous benefits, Germany hopes to reduce migrant pressure on its neighbours and prevent the anti-migration chain reaction from getting off the ground. This is why German politicians are so quick to equate any flavour of migration restrictionism with hostility to the EU. Smaller countries like Denmark and Hungary can shut their doors to migrants, because the added pressure on the rest of Europe is minimal. Germany, however, is different; the structural integrity of the entire system depends on German borders remaining open.
The problem is that the snake has begun to eat its own tail. The energy crisis and the lunatic anti-nuclear and anti-carbon radicalism of the Greens have taken a huge bite out of German prosperity. Open borders have lost their appeal, Alternative für Deutschland are pounding at the door, and no amount of staged public freakouts about “the extreme right” can restore the balance.
Look at the polls: Fully 82% of West Germans and 84% of East Germans believe the state should limit migration. A majority across almost every major party, including 55% of Green voters, agree that migration must be restricted.1 Huge majorities of East and West Germans support deporting criminal migrants, reducing the benefits of asylees whose applications have been rejected, weakening family reunification provisions and cutting down the potential pool of asylees by increasing the number of those nations designated as secure countries of origin. On many of these issues you see a general convergence of opinion, with West Germans gradually adopting the anti-migration views of their supposedly backward and anti-democratic East German counterparts, who in this area as in many others are simply less prosperous, less insulated from geopolitical trends and therefore more likely to be at the forward edge of political opinion.
Why does the US government hate the American people? Why does the US government try to destroy us?
The Anti-White American Democrats are Incapable of Understanding that an illegal alien does not become part of a national community by unlawfully entering it, any more than a thief becomes an owner of property by stealing it.Popular Mechanics How …Popular MechanicsBest Price: $5.37Buy New $15.26(as of 12:14 UTC — Details)
What has happened to America when the entirety of the media, the entirety of the Democrat Party, the entirety of the universities, Homeland Security (sic) not only welcome but also facilitate the immigrant invasion that is overrunning the United States while Washington, abandoning its own borders, fights for Ukraine’s?
The national print and TV media describe the over-running of Springfield by immigrant-invaders as a restoration of a declining city, restoring property values, and enriching the culture. Every bit of information to the contrary is dismissed as fake news.
Wake Up White People. Your Existence Is Being Erased.
How is the Department of Homeland Security Protecting Our Security by Flying into Our Country at Our Expense Immigrant-invaders from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela?
Empire of LiesCraig Roberts, PaulBest Price: $16.00Buy New $18.86(as of 03:43 UTC — Details)DHS restarts migrant flights from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela – weeks after halting program over ‘fraud’ concerns | 29 Aug 2024 | The Department of Homeland Security said Thursday it is resuming migrant flights into the US from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela — one month after putting the program on pause due to potentially massive “fraud.” Under the Harris-Biden administration, the program had brought up to 30,000 migrants from those four nations into the U.S. every month under two-year work permits, so long as they passed a vetting process. Nearly half a million migrants had already received advance travel authorizations and then made their own arrangements to enter America via the humanitarian parole process before it was paused in mid-July. Around that time, an internal DHS report found thousands of sponsors allegedly committing fraud by listing fake Social Security numbers, home addresses or phone numbers — some of which belonged to dead people. See here.
UK University Removes ‘Anglo-Saxon’ From Curriculum | 1 Sept 2024 | In a Black Lives Matter-inspired move, a British university has cancelled the term “Anglo-Saxon” from its curriculum. The University of Nottingham has removed “Algo-Saxon” from courses on history and literature to push back against “nationalist narratives.” According to The Telegraph, a masters-level course, Viking and Anglo-Saxon Studies, has been renamed as Viking and Early Medieval English Studies. Another module, a literature course originally named “A Tale of Seven Kingdoms: Anglo-Saxon and Viking-Age England from Bede to Alfred the Great” has been recast as “Early Mediaeval England from Bede to Alfred the Great.” Also, the university reportedly said that it will seek to “problematize the term ‘Viking’” as well.
Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how americans lost the protection of law, has been released by Random House. Visit his website.
As individual citizens, as voters and taxpayers we have been so deeply, so consistently, so relentlessly indoctrinated, so blindly radicalized, and so thoroughly and easily subjugated and ideologically manipulated that, by now, it has become terribly challenging for any of us to even entertain any viewpoint or any opinion that is opposed to our own.
It is next to impossible for a single individual to find the strength of character or the moral fortitude to raise doubts, questions or objections against the prevalent dogmatic proclamations (arguments built upon the idea that any statement can be true and valid as long as a figure of authority declares it so – even if common sense or public opinion opposes it). It is nearly inconceivable for an ordinary person to defy convention and conformity and to embrace basic human instincts instead, by giving in to primal urges like curiosity, inquisitiveness, creativity and innovation. It has become unthinkable, unacceptable and even unforgivable to harbor, to foster and to pursue any original thought, especially if said thought is perceived as dissenting, deviating or dismissive towards the myriads of forced narratives and “universal truths” have been imposed upon the body politic since time immemorial.The Anti-Globalist Man…Corsi, Jerome R.Best Price: $26.58Buy New $24.26(as of 01:47 UTC — Details)
For example, no-one is allowed to question the need (or, more accurately, the lack thereof) for a State machine or for a government or for any other kind of centralized authority. It is generally taken for granted and it is seen as a “given” that some kind of central, “top down” administration has to exist, in order for any civilized society to emerge and to function. In most western nations, it is also seen as self-evident that the most efficient and effective way to choose this all-important and all-powerful leadership is to go through the democratic process and to ascertain the majority’s wishes, to be guided by the “will of the people” and to strive towards the “greater good” – or differently put, to prioritise the interests of the many over the interests of the few, to maximize the welfare, the protection and the prosperity of the “average” voter over the needs and even over the natural rights of any divergent individual – society as a whole is seen as infinitely more important than the actual human beings who constitute it.
This kind of brutally utilitarian, entirely soulless and deplorably materialistic view of mankind is truly alarming. Looking at people as mere parts of a whole, dehumanizing them by treating them as interchangeable cogs in a machine, and denying them their basic human dignity by dismissing their individuality, the unique experiences, the choices and the sacrifices that shaped them is a dangerously reductive and recklessly myopic way of looking at the world and especially trying to understand our role or our purpose in it. This unfeeling and distorted perspective, that values human achievements, feats of ingenuity or creativity, and general human progress only if they serve and further the interests of the collective inevitably reduces every individual to an inconsequential, inhuman, readily replaceable automaton, dominated and controlled by genetically pre-programmed commands and primal instincts and hardwired to value social acceptance, group membership and conformity over anything else.
This point of view is eerily and worryingly similar to the way we view an ant colony or a bee hive. We marvel at the coordination, the synchronization, the communication, the assimilation and the harmonization that these remarkable creatures demonstrate. We are impressed and fascinated by their collective behaviors, patterns and skills, and we are captivated by their capacity to act in perfect unison and to function as a single “super-organism” with a unified purpose and consolidated will. Our admiration of successful colonies and productive hives, our respect for these complex and spectacular systems, and our delight at the precision, persistence and resilience that permeates their life’s work makes it near-impossible for most people to inflict any harm upon such a collective, provided it poses no physical threat of course.
Having seen and fully appreciated the marvelous intricacies, the impenetrable cohesion and the meticulous organization of an ant colony or the seemingly spontaneous order, the efficiency and the productivity of a bee hive, the vast majority of sane, sensible people would instinctively be inclined to protect and preserve natural formations of this sort, as they stand as a testament to the power of the collective. No-one in their right mind would purposefully and unprovokedly destroy a buzzing bee hive or a dynamic ant colony. However, the same cannot be said for the individual members of systems like these. A single ant or a solitary bee enjoy no such reverence; to the contrary, they are treated as pests, they stir only feelings of annoyance or disgust and they are thus summarily and almost automatically exterminated.
This analogy holds up very well as an illustration of how the powers that be look at the individual citizen. They too seek to protect and preserve the collective, they too appreciate the “public” as a whole – after all, there can be no government if there’s no body to govern. That’s why the faceless, soulless, abstract “masses”, the “citizenry”, the “body politic”, or whatever else one chooses to call this human super-organism, is vitally important to those who seek power and control. However, no respect, or even no compassion, is extended to the individual citizen.
Much like we consider the life, the suffering and the death of the aforementioned defenseless insects to be totally insignificant and entirely irrelevant to our own lives, so do the rulers look upon the ruled. And just like most of us would not think twice before crushing an ant with our shoe, so do the powers that be feel about crushing bothersome individuals.
The only real difference is that most human collectives are controlled by the illusion of choice, the idea of self determination and the promise of personal agency. The notion that everyone’s voice is heard in the ballot box and the fantasy of “Vox Populi, Vox Dei”, despite being completely devoid of any meaning, have managed to sustain Western democracies for centuries. The public’s blind faith that “the system works”, that each vote counts as much as the next and that everyone has the same power to influence an election outcome might sound outrageously naive to the rational, clear-eyed observer, but it is this sheer wishful thinking that underpins and supports almost every western nation.
What is even more astounding is that even when the deception becomes apparent, this illusion of choice remains. In the West, we have for decades been subjected to the illusion of choice between two ideologically opposed political parties. However, everything makes a lot more sense once one realizes that the right wing and the left wing are attached to the same bird.
Every election cycle, including the one we’re in the middle of (with 2024 being the biggest election year in history based on the number of different national elections around the globe), we see this false dichotomy and yet the vast majority of the population still fall for it. Voting for the whomever presents themselves as a “conservative” means you’re either a fascist or a true patriot. Conversely, voting for left leaning parties makes you either moral and compassionate or a raging Marxist. This is an obviously childish view of the world, but it is where are presently standing in the political public dialogue. It is an intentionally bombastic, obnoxious and loud way of presenting the two choices to the average citizen and it is meant to distract them from the fact that there have actually no choice at all.
No matter who wins, the State machine keep humming along unperturbed. Sure, you might see some inconsequential and largely symbolic popular policies passed into law, like a tax cut here or an extra welfare benefit there, but the things that really matter, the decisions, the funding, the structural management of the country is totally unaffected. Wars, division, government powers and control, suppression of free speech, they all keep growing, along with the size of the State machine itself.Democracy u2013 The Go…Hans-Hermann HoppeBest Price: $24.77Buy New $37.61(as of 09:25 UTC — Details)
We saw this in recent European elections. The media at time claimed this year’s vote to be historic and all-defining in Belgium, France and in the UK. They turned out to be nothing of the sort. The people voted for the right in the first two examples and for the left in the latter case. Absolutely nothing changed in all cases, both wars are still ongoing, ECB-created inflation is still raging, individual freedoms are still being disregarded. The example of France, is particularly illuminating, as the popular vote was essentially ignored when previously warring parties entered into a coalition to block them from taking charge.
What voters fail to consider time and time again, is that the choice they are given is the same as the one Henry Ford gave to his customers when it came to selecting a color for their new car: “they can have whatever color they want, as long as it is black”.
It is entirely irrational to expect a different result when we keep doing the same thing over and over. Participating in this circus, turning against our neighbors and allowing ideological obsession to blind us to common sense and human empathy is not the way forward. The only sustainable path for reasonable, freedom loving people is to seek like-minded individuals and just “opt out” of this irreparably corrupt and unsalvageable system. The moment we all understand that the true enemy is not to our left nor to our right, but has been crushing us with his boot from above the entire time, is the moment we can start to regain control over our own lives.
Ludwig von Mises depicts the aim of revolutionary socialism as: “to clear the ground for building up a new civilization by liquidating the old one.” One of the main strategies in liquidating a civilization involves dismantling its legal and philosophical foundations. This role is fulfilled by activists who embark upon “sabotage and revolution” by subverting the meaning of words: “The socialists have engineered a semantic revolution in converting the meaning of terms into their opposite.”
George Orwell famously called this subversive language “Newspeak.” Peter Foster describes Newspeak as “a sort of totalitarian Esperanto that sought gradually to diminish the range of what was thinkable by eliminating, contracting, and manufacturing words.”
Mises explains that dictators express their ideas in Newspeak precisely because, if they did not, nobody would support their schemes:1984 (Signet Classics)George OrwellBest Price: $1.49Buy New $3.58(as of 10:53 UTC — Details)
This reversal of the traditional connotation of all words of the political terminology is not merely a peculiarity of the language of the Russian Communists and their Fascist and Nazi disciples. The social order that in abolishing private property deprives the consumers of their autonomy and independence, and thereby subjects every man to the arbitrary discretion of the central planning board, could not win the support of the masses if they were not to camouflage its main character. The socialists would have never duped the voters if they had openly told them that their ultimate end is to cast them into bondage. (emphasis added)
In the proliferation of Newspeak, the reinterpretation of “human rights” has proved to be one of the most powerful weapons of sabotage and revolution. Activists have seized control of a vast empire of international law, NGOs, and human rights charities with a global network of staff who monitor respect for “human rights.” They wield their significant influence in the human rights industry to undermine human liberty by redefining the meaning of “human rights” to denote the antidiscrimination principle. Under the banner of equality and nondiscrimination, they restrict free speech and other human liberties. In other words, the doctrine of “human rights” now denotes the precise opposite: the destruction of human liberty.
The “human right” to non-discrimination
Human rights no longer mean what many might suppose: the right to life, liberty, and property. The vast corpus of human rights in international law has been categorized by Karel Vašák into three: civil-political, socio-economic, and collective-developmental. These categories are said to encompass negative rights (things the state must not do, such interfering with life, liberty, or property), positive rights (things the state must do, for example, provide citizens with food, shelter, education, healthcare, etc.), and rights of solidarity between citizens such as wealth redistribution through social welfare schemes and equal participation in economic progress through measures such as the minimum wage or equal pay.
Human rights organizations monitor progress against these categories and ensure that the legal system works in favor of socialist goals and against liberty. For example, the United Nations human rights program educates the public on the need to eradicate “hate speech” and interprets “equal protection” of the law, as a fundamental human right, to mean protection from hate speech. The UN says:
Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into more something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law.
From that description, it can be seen that the UN takes a concept which is well-established in the criminal law, namely, prohibiting incitement to violence, and links it to notions of incitement to discrimination and incitement to hostility, which have never before been recognized as crimes. They annex discrimination and hostility to the charge of inciting violence because, if they did not, it would be immediately clear to everyone that criminalizing “discrimination” or “hostility” amounts to nothing less than Newspeakian crimethink.
The meaning of human rights
In his article, “There’s no such thing as Human Rights,” the British journalist Peter Hitchens argues that,
Human rights do not exist. They are an invention, made out of pure wind. If you are seriously interested in staying free, you should not rely on these flatulent, vague phrases to help you.
They are in fact a weapon in the hands of those who wish to remove your liberty and transform society, though this is probably an accident. It is only in the past 50 years or so that radical judges have realised these baseless declarations can be used (for example) to abolish national frontiers or give criminals the right to vote.
In that context, Hitchens is referring not to the ancient liberties protected by Magna Carta, but to the Newspeakian rights now enshrined in human rights instruments, such as the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. Human rights have been transformed into wooly concepts which merely reflect political and partisan demands.
Murray Rothbard avoids the ambiguity surrounding the meaning of human rights by defining them as property rights. In the Ethics of Liberty, he explains:
…the concept of “rights” only makes sense as property rights. For not only are there no human rights which are not also property rights, but the former rights lose their absoluteness and clarity and become fuzzy and vulnerable when property rights are not used as the standard.
In the first place, there are two senses in which property rights are identical with human rights: one, that property can only accrue to humans, so that their rights to property are rights that belong to human beings; and two, that the person’s right to his own body, his personal liberty, is a property right in his own person as well as a “human right.” But more importantly for our discussion, human rights, when not put in terms of property rights, turn out to be vague and contradictory, causing liberals to weaken those rights on behalf of “public policy” or the “public good.”
Thus, the Rothbardian interpretation of human rights denotes the universal right to self-ownership and private property that vests in all human beings.
Bureaucratic reinterpretation
In practice, the meaning of human rights is subject to interpretation by courts or other law enforcement officials. Therefore, human rights ultimately mean only what they are interpreted to mean by law enforcement, not what they may theoretically, politically, or philosophically. Lowell B. Mason, an attorney and former chair of the Federal Trade Commission explains the significance of bureaucratic interpretation by observing wryly that:
When in private practice I never told clients what the law was; I always told them what the bureaucrats thought the law was… The legality or illegality of what you do often depends not on the words of a statute enacted by your elected representatives, but on the state of the collective liver of a dozen anonymous bureaucrats.
Being well aware of this, the goal of activists is to ensure that “human rights” are interpreted so as to advance their goals. This explains the concerted efforts to depict “hate speech” as a human rights violation. In this way the commitment of states to protecting “human rights” is transformed, through the prism of the antidiscrimination principle, into an edict to prohibit hate speech. The word “hate” is interpreted to mean having the temerity to disagree with socialists, and similarly, the word “equality” is interpreted to mean wealth redistribution to achieve equality of material conditions.The 5-Ingredient Cookb…Kelly, BenjaminBest Price: $5.01Buy New $10.24(as of 05:04 UTC — Details)
Mason explains how it is possible for bureaucrats, charged with law enforcement, to reinterpret the Constitution to suit whatever they think the law ought to achieve. No matter how carefully a law is drafted, it will always require interpretation, and this is where the bureaucrats strike as they purport to be applying the “evolving” meaning of the Constitution. Mason explains:
“Of course,” he will reassure you, “the Constitution still stands as a bulwark to liberty but it is a growing instrument that adapts itself to the times, and while it has not been repealed or amended, it has necessarily been reinterpreted so that due process (as it was known in the past) no longer unduly encumbers the administration of the law.”
Through Newspeak, the Constitution itself has been reinterpreted, enabling socialists to claim that they support free speech and also support the prohibition of “hate speech.” Mises explains that this subverts the concept of freedom into its very opposite: “Freedom implies the right to choose between assent and dissent. But in Newspeak it means the duty to assent unconditionally and strict interdiction of dissent.” In that sense, the concept of “hate speech” is not compatible with free speech. In denoting any dissent as “hate,” it is the very negation of free speech and freedom of thought. Through Orwellian Newspeak, ordinary words like “liberty,” “justice,” and “equality”—values that most people would support—have been subverted and harnessed to promote socialism.Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.
Dr. Wanjiru Njoya is a Scholar-in-Residence for the Mises Institute. She is the author of Economic Freedom and Social Justice (Palgrave Macmillan, 2021), Redressing Historical Injustice (Palgrave Macmillan, 2023, with David Gordon) and “A Critique of Equality Legislation in Liberal Market Economies” (Journal of Libertarian Studies, 2021).
Die Rüstungsindustrie steht kurz vor der Heiligsprechung: Sie soll als „nachhaltig“ gelten. Und die europäische Wertpapieraufsicht ESMA hat längst grünes Licht gegeben. Blutgeld für die Gesellschaft? Abgesegnet von ganz oben? Mit gutem Gewissen Geld aus dem Kriegsgeschäft erhalten, weil: nachhaltig? Willkommen im „wertegerechten“ Handel mit dem Krieg. Ein Kommentar von Marcus Klöckner.
Dieser Beitrag ist auch als Audio-Podcast verfügbar.
Das „Image von Rüstungsunternehmen“ hat sich schließlich „verändert“. Und „viele Menschen sehen die Branche hierzulande als etwas Positives“. So ist es auf der Webseite des Nachrichtensenders ntvzu lesen. Hintergrund: Fonds-Anbieter wollen die Rüstungsindustrie in ihre Nachhaltigkeitsfonds aufnehmen. Ja, Sie lesen richtig, das ist kein Witz.
Der Wertezerfall im Wertewesten ist evident. Auf den Altären der Lügen und der Propaganda verbrennen jene hehren Standards, für die die feinen Demokratien unserer Zeit stehen sollen – schneller, als die Hände der Propagandisten dabei klatschen können. Seit geraumer Zeit ist zu beobachten, wie hierzulande der Krieg enttabuisiert wird. Morden auf dem Schlachtfeld? Völlig in Ordnung – zumindest, wenn die „Guten“ gegen die „Bösen“ kämpfen. Die „Guten“, das sind selbstredend „wir“.
„Der russische Angriffskrieg in der Ukraine hat das Image von Rüstungsunternehmen verändert. Viele Menschen sehen die Branche hierzulande als etwas Positives. Ein Investment in Waffenschmieden könnte auch in Deutschland bald als nachhaltig eingestuft werden.“
So stehen die Aussagen da. Im gesamten Text findet sich keine kritische Einordnung oder Distanzierung. Woher der Sender „weiß“, dass „viele Menschen“ die Rüstungsbranche in Deutschland als etwas „Positives“ sehen, bleibt sein Geheimnis – genauso wie die Aussage, dass der „russische Angriffskrieg“ das Image des Kriegsgeschäftes „verändert“ habe. Wie viele Bürger Deutschlands sind „viele“? Was heißt, das Image habe sich verändert? Offensichtlich zum Positiven hin. Aber bei wem? Bei den Kriegstreibern unserer Zeit? Aber vor allem: Ein Image verändert sich nicht, sondern es wird verändert; nämlich in diesem Fall von jenen, die ein Interesse daran haben, den Krieg in der Ukraine eindimensional zu zeichnen und Deutschland auf Konfrontationskurs mit Russland trimmen zu wollen. Ein Weg zur Imageveränderung könnte etwa sein, die Rüstungsindustrie als Sponsor in ein großes Fußballstadion zu führen. Borussia Dortmund zeigt, wie es geht (siehe „Echte Liebe für blutiges Geld“).
Oder aber: Was wäre, wenn jene Industrie, die ihr Geld mit dem Bau von todbringenden Waffen verdient, als „nachhaltig“ klassifiziert gelte? Würde ein solcher Schritt das Image dieser Branche verbessern?
Blutgeld anzunehmen – das ist öffentlich eher noch verpönt. Aber sein Vermögen zu mehren, indem in „Nachhaltigkeit“ investiert wird? Das hört sich schon ganz anders an. Nachhaltig – dieser Begriff steht in unserer Gesellschaft für Umweltschutz, für einen sorgsamen Umgang mit den Ressourcen dieses Planeten. Nachhaltigkeit steht für Rücksicht, für Fairness und den Aufbau einer lebenswerten Zukunft für uns alle.
Deutsche Banken- und Fondsverbände „wollen künftig nachhaltigen Anlageprodukten nicht mehr verbieten, in Rüstungsunternehmen zu investieren“, heißt es bei ntv. Zwar sollten völkerrechtlich geächtete Waffen auch weiterhin für Investoren ausgeschlossen bleiben, aber die deutsche Kreditwirtschaft hat offensichtlich ansonsten kein Problem mit der Rüstungsindustrie. Die europäische Wertpapieraufsicht ESMA erlaube, so ntv, „mittlerweile, Rüstungshersteller als nachhaltig zu klassifizieren“.
„Seit dem Überfall auf die Ukraine gibt es eine Debatte über die gesellschaftliche Bedeutung von Verteidigung und Rüstung. Wir möchten diese Debatte auch den Fondsmanagern und Anlegern ermöglichen”, zitiert ntv Magdalena Kuper vom Deutschen Fondsverband BVI.
Das klingt alles so schön, so weichgezeichnet. Was offensichtlich nicht erkannt wird: Egal wie geschliffen die Worte auch sein mögen, Blutgeld der Rüstungsindustrie bleibt Blutgeld.
It is always the repressor who decides the reason for the repression. Always.
Hillary Clinton, in a tête a tête with Rachel Maddow (Rachel One-to-One program on MSNBC), who is herself the queen of Russophobic propagandists and the main mainstream propagator of the infamous “Russiagate”, defend the lift of criminal charges against Americans who spread Russian “disinformation”.
Hillary Clinton herself bears enormous responsibility for disinformation, it must be said, since it was in her personal circle that “Russiagate”, and a whole strategy of demonizing Russia with the aim of separating the EU from this Eurasian power, were projected. Although it wasn’t so transparent at the time, this strategy of accusing the Russian Federation of wanting to “interfere” in Western democracies – as if the U.S. wasn’t the monopolist power of “democratic” interventionism – already represented the result of what we can call the ideological political “new normal”: the “normal” in which the parties of the center unite into a single monolithic and cohesive mass of principles, values and objectives. At the time, the Democratic Party already represented Wall Street and the entire military-industrial complex, as did the most fervent neocons, who many people thought were only in the Republican Party.
The support from people like Dick Cheney, accompanied by the massive support of 238 neocons, former George W. Bush “staffers”, McCain and Mitt Romney, referring to Kamala Harris as the “savior of democracy”, clearly demonstrates the reach of the Democratic Party among the ruling class. Don’t be fooled, for these people, many of them genocidal of the worst kind, responsible for crimes like the “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, responsible for eternal wars like the one in Afghanistan, it’s not about “saving democracy”! It’s about pursuing the plan to regain world hegemony. With everything that this recovery might mean. Trump, for now, is threatening this project by turning inwards. We’ll see what he does when he realizes that nothing, he can do, will stop the loss of U.S. dominance in the world.
If anyone is to blame for the escalation that is destroying the West, it is Hillary Clinton. During the reign of her husband (Bill Clinton), between saxophones and adultery, the Democratic Party not only sold out to Wall Street, starting a process in which, over time, it began to collect as many corporate donations (PACS) as the Republican Party, demonstrating the game played by most corporations on both boards. The truth of today is that the Democratic party collects individual donations from the most important billionaires, like Michael Bloomberg and many others. No longer is the Democratic Party a Worker’s party.
The role of the Democratic Party as an instrument of anti-democratic domination suddenly came to the fore during the Clinton era, as when, in 1996, it destroyed, through the Telecommunications Act, Roosevelt’s regulations about the media sector, which prevented what happened later and what we see today: the concentration of the mainstream media in a handful of large conglomerates that cartelize and create a common narrative. All under the banner of the “liberalization of media markets”, which wiped out the smaller operators, accused of having “local monopolies”. Deregulation ended with the domination of the media by half a dozen large conglomerates.
In other words, it was with Hillary and the Democratic Party, and then with the Patriot Act under Bush jr, that the U.S. lost freedom of the press, privacy and freedom of opposition, opening the door to torture and mass surveillance, all of these policies backed by the “fight against terror”. 9/11 worked as a form of power legitimation through victimization.
At that time, the Democratic Party broke in two parts. There were still 45 congress representatives who resisted the logic of eternal war. By the time we reached 2022 and Ukraine, this number had been substantially reduced. Today, it is more common to see resistance on the Republican side than on the Democratic one, so you can see how corrupted the Democratic National Committee has become.
Proving that repression never starts with the head under the guillotine, but is rather the result of an escalating process aimed at responding to a crisis, in the U.S. – and in Europe – the loss of democratic elasticity and the consequent ideological hardening has been progressive. Today, as with 9/11 in 2001, Ukraine war and U.S.’s “support” was an attempt to legitimize world power again through victimization. But the U.S. of today lack the world confidence that it had before. This loss of confidence accompanies the decline of the Western bloc in terms of its importance in the world and, in the case of the U.S., the growing repression is a direct result of the loss of world hegemony. Repression is thus a “rallying call” to prevent the crisis from progressing.
The growing breakdown of the dollar – which even they themselves can no longer disguise – , with Trump proposing a measure (100% on products that don´t use the dollar), combined with the growing discrediting and dismantling, by more and more countries, of its soft power (media, Think Tank and academia), as well as the emergence of a luxury competitor, which is taking the place it has always had in history, shifting the center of the world economy once again to Asia, brings to the U.S. a reality in which, if it loses Europe and its dominance over it, it will not only be isolated from the heartland (Emanuel Todd thought this would happen in the first decade of the 21st century, but wokism and the Republican and Democratic concentration in a unified power bloc managed to mitigate the situation for a while), but it will be relegated to its worst terror, the descent to the level of a regional power.
For the time being, there hasn’t been a single report in the Western mainstream press about the adoption of BRICS Pay or the fact that in October, in Kazan, 126 countries will discuss ending their dependence on the dollar. These countries are home to 85% of the world’s population. If that’s not enough news for a simple media footnote… Innocuousness or systemic advantage has become the fundamental characteristic of media news activity.
Despite all these developments and their predictability, as early as 2022, unfortunately only a tiny percentage of people saw what the Ukrainian conflict was really about. Historically, the Eurasian relationship is the worst threat to U.S. hegemonism. Russia and relations between Western and Eastern Europe are the key. They must be separated. However, human separation cannot resist geographical connection and, above all, mutual necessity. These will, in my opinion, be inexorable. Until Western domination by brute force in the 15th-16th centuries, the world had always been multipolar. That’s where it’s heading again.
To prevent this, the strategy is still and always based on demonizing and isolating Russia. The intercontinental connection between Europe, Asia and Africa must be prevented. Faced with the inability and impossibility of characterizing everything as “Kremlin propaganda” when the facts don’t fit the official narrative, Hillary is now proposing a new phase in mind control. The Nazis too understood the importance of this vast country for world domination.
I’ve often wondered when, in the West, they would start arresting people for speaking “propaganda”, now from the Kremlin, tomorrow from anything else deemed inappropriate by those in charge. Just like in any fascist state. I’ve written about this several times before, warning that the material relations (economic, political and social) of the regime we live in constitute the kind of reality that shapes regimes that can be called “fascist”: the highest level of wealth concentration in a dominant oligarchy, which uses the power it has acquired to accelerate the concentration even further and which, when faced with the masses’ resistance to the destruction of their well-being, uses repression to contain them. That’s what fascism is in its essence. There’s no need to develop theoretical and idealistic elaborations.
The most incautious, blindfolded, reactionary or deluded, incapable of recognizing in history its movement, the dialectical relationship between reality and human action, believed that fascism would not return. That we lived in a democracy and that, by voting, everything would be guaranteed. In fascism you voted, and in fascist constitutions there was also talk of democracy. Fascism is just a more aggressive phase in the process of concentrating wealth, with the effects that this has on political life, as a mirror of the social relations that underlie it. Some still think they are living in the same phase of the regime as they were 20 years ago, even though the structure of wealth redistribution has changed radically. As if the concentration of greater power in an dominant class – and with ever greater dominance – didn’t change anything in politics.
As if politics weren’t a mirror of the material relations that give rise to it! The fascist phase also inaugurated the most serious phase of the capitalist crisis, reproduced in our time in the crisis of the hegemony of the U.S.-led neoliberal economic system. As Mathew C. Klein and Michael Pettis in their excellent book “Trade Wars are Class Wars”, the U.S.-China trade war is also the result of the class struggle.
Hillary has set the political – and theoretical – tone for the beginning of the repressive process in which the struggle of the people against the ruling class is intensifying. Control of the media, censorship of social networks, mass surveillance of every phone, computer, television or household appliance, all flowing into the neural networks of the NSA (U.S. National Security Agency), profiling, predicting and predicting behavior, have not been enough to prevent the degradation of “full spectrum dominance”, a doctrine that since the Second World War has been the script of “U.S. world leadership”.
After Jack Rubin blamed RT for the failure of the Ukrainian project (what better assumption of the artificiality of this conflict?), Killary is now proposing the next step: arresting those who tell the truth! The U.S. has failed to create a fake Palestine (Ukraine) and a fake Israel (the Russian Federation), providing for Russia the global treatment it prevented for Israel, and Jack Rubin blames RT. It’s not reality’s fault, it’s not the fallacy of the narrative. It’s the fault of those who dismantle it.
You could say to me “oh, but it’s Kremlin propaganda”! But who decides what is or isn’t “Kremlin propaganda”? When communists, progressives and other democrats denounced repression during the fascist night, “it was communist propaganda”, when they denounced poverty, hunger, misery and illiteracy, “it was communist propaganda”. It is always the repressor who decides the reason for the repression. Always.
And no repression happens for no reason, unjustifiably or gratuitously. Everyone assumes the best intentions in the world when they respond to a deep crisis with the instruments of repression. And the U.S. is the one that talks best about its “good intentions” …
However, as the popular saying goes: “The devil is full of good intentions”
The biggest promise of the Vilnius government to its people is war and destruction.
A leaflet titled “What to Do in the Event of a Crisis or War?” will be distributed to the public in Lithuania.
This leaflet, which is set to be delivered to approximately one million households this fall, will inform Lithuanian citizens about what they should do in times of crisis.
Laurynas Kasčiūnas, a member of the Lithuanian Parliament (Seimas) and a representative of the Christian Democrats (TS-LKD), explained the purpose of the leaflet at a press conference: “The goal is for this publication to be present in every household. It’s necessary to provide a foundation for planning the safety of your loved ones in potential scenarios.”
Deputy Minister of Defense Kamile Gogelienė added: “All households will find this publication in their mailboxes. A total of 900,000 copies are to be distributed in September and October, with the rest to be delivered at the beginning of next year.”
Not only Lithuania, but other Northern European and Baltic countries are also preparing for the ‘anticipated war’ with Russia.
Recently, Latvian President Edgars Rinkevics announced that a Russian drone had crashed into Latvian territory, calling on the alliance to discuss responses, including the ability to shoot down such drones.
In other words, Rinkevics called on NATO to shoot down Russian drones.
The expansion of NATO, increased defense spending by Russia’s neighboring countries, and the militarization of the region are often seen as developments that occurred after Russia’s 2022 Donbass operation. This is also the general stance of Western media.
However, NATO had already expanded, and continues to do so, especially during and after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Lithuania is one of the most ‘anti-Russian’ countries in the region. Wars with Russia play a significant role in Lithuania’s history.
The history of wars between Lithuania and Russia dates back to the 1700s. During World War II, the Soviet Union (considered an occupation by Lithuanian nationalists) began in 1944 and ended in 1990 with Lithuania becoming the first Baltic state to declare independence from the Soviet Union, spurred by the Sajudis movement founded in 1988 and accompanied by slogans like “Red Army Go Home.”
The ‘January Events,’ which followed Soviet intervention and resulted in 14 deaths and 702 injuries, did not stop nationalist forces, and Lithuania eventually gained its independence.
Since then, Lithuania has shaped its entire security strategy and political orientation around opposition to Russia. This led to the emergence of a new country, entirely controlled by the West, right on Russia’s doorstep.
By the 2000s, Lithuania had already become an important base for the U.S. in its opposition to Russia. In 2004, just 18 years before Russia launched its operation in Ukraine, Lithuania joined NATO, becoming a key part of the alliance’s expansion strategy during the year of Ukraine’s first ‘color revolution’ (the Orange Revolution).
In recent years, Lithuania has continued to carry out this mission.
Lithuania’s last 5 years:
Played a significant role in strengthening ‘security guarantees’ for the Baltic countries during the NATO summit in December 2019,
Hosted the large-scale U.S.-led ‘Saber Strike’ military exercise in the Baltic region,
Played a key role in NATO’s largest exercise, ‘Defender Europe 2020,’ held in 2020,
Actively participated in NATO Air Policing missions to ‘protect’ Baltic airspace, with various NATO allies deployed in Lithuania,
Hosted the Saber Strike exercise again in 2021,
Deepened security cooperation with Poland for cross-border exercises and defense system integration within NATO,
Provided military aid within the NATO framework when the Russia-Ukraine crisis broke out,
Strengthened NATO forces’ presence in Baltic airspace as one of the main countries involved in the Baltic Air Policing mission,
Hosted the 2023 NATO summit and the ‘Iron Wolf’ exercise aimed at increasing the readiness of NATO forces for war.
Lithuania’s close relationship with NATO, while developed as a response to the ‘Russian threat,’ has, in essence, disrupted the security balance in the Baltic region and escalated the conflict between Russia and the West.
The ongoing expansion of NATO and the increasing frequency of military exercises have gone beyond Lithuania’s goal of providing security, making it a part of NATO’s aggressive policies.
These leaflets, to be handed to the public in Lithuania, are not merely emergency instructions but an important symbol showing that the biggest promise of the Vilnius government to its people is war and destruction.
This call for citizens to be prepared for war reflects the natural outcome of Lithuania’s integration with NATO, its anti-communism, and its right-wing orientation. This strategy, which fuels constant militarization under the guise of defense, provokes crises and ignores the real demands of the people. It does not promise peace to the Lithuanian people, but only the uncertainty and destruction that war brings.
Der Evangelische Landesbischof für Brandenburg, Dr. Christian Staeblein, lässt die beispiellose Stimmungsmache gegen AfD-Wähler unter seinen Glaubensbrüdern zu (Foto:Imago)
Nicht nur die Kartellparteien und ihre Medien, auch die Kirchen lassen sich durch die jüngsten Wahlerfolge der AfD nicht zur Besinnung bringen: Vor der Wahl in Brandenburg am Sonntag sondern sie weiter ihr ewig gleiches, abgedroschenes Geschwätz ab. Vor allem die evangelische Landeskirche Brandenburg zeigt, dass sie inzwischen nur mehr eine politische Vorfeldorganisation ohne spirituelles Grundverständnis ist: Sie hielt es kurz vor der Wahl abermals für angebracht, noch einmal den Unvereinbarkeitsbeschluss ihrer Überzeugungen mit AfD-Positionen zu bekräftigen. Heinz-Joachim Lohmann, der “Beauftragte der Evangelischen Kirche Berlin-Brandenburg-schlesische Oberlausitz für den Umgang mit gruppenbezogener Menschenfeindlichkeit” (so lautet die Amtsbezeichnung tatsächlich) schwurbelte, die angeblichen (natürlich nirgends je so geäußerten) Vorstellungen der AfD von einem “rein deutschen Kulturraum” verstießen gegen den Grundsatz, dass jeder Mensch unabhängig von seiner Herkunft die gleiche Würde habe. Die Brandenburger AfD verfolge letztlich “die Idee minderwertiger und höherwertiger menschlicher Rassen”, steigerte auch er sich in die wahnhafte politmediale Projektion der AfD als neue NSDAP hinein. Gerechtigkeit unter den Menschen und die “Aufhebung aller Zertrennungen” seien jedoch biblische Vorgaben und Wesensmerkmale der Kirche. Ferner unterstellte Lohmann der AfD Brandenburg, sie wolle sich nicht von der “Neonazi-Szene und anderen Rechtsextremisten abgrenzen”. Die Landeskirche hingegen engagiere sich seit Langem in Bündnissen gegen den Rechtsextremismus und begleite dessen Opfer.
Dieses bis in Punkt und Komma verlogene Gefasel unterstreicht abermals den völligen moralischen Bankrott der Kirchen: Abgesehen davon, dass es ihnen überhaupt nicht zusteht, sich in das Grundrecht auf freie politische Willensbildung einzumischen, hatten sie bisher noch nie ein Problem mit der gegen die biblischen Gebote verstoßenden Abtreibungsagenda, importiertem antichristlichen und antisemitischem Islam oder der perversen Genderideologie der Linksparteien; alles ideologische Ausblühungen, die im Resultat die christliche Substanz in diesem Land auflösen. Sofern die Kirchen überhaupt Kritik an diesen katastrophalen Fehlentwicklungen äußern, fällt diese äußerst knapp, verhalten und nur punktuell aus; eine Grundsatzkritik fehlt gänzlich und natürlich gibt es auch keine Unvereinbarkeitsbeschlüsse gegenüber Grünen oder SPD, die das kulturell-identitäre Zerstörungswerk in Deutschland maßgeblich verrichten. Von einem Verbot für linke Politiker, kirchliche Ämter auszuüben, ganz zu schweigen. Vor dem Hintergrund der SED-Vergangenheit – gerade in Brandenburg – ist das nur schwer nachvollziehbar.
Entartungen des Linksstaats
Im August hatte sich die Evangelische Kirche Berlin-Brandenburg-schlesische Oberlausitz dem völlig untadeligen Kommunalpolitiker Henry Preuß sämtliche Ehrenämter entzogen, nur weil er sich in der AfD engagiert. Kirchenmitglied – und damit Kirchensteuerzahler – darf er aber natürlich bleiben. Auch das zeigt die widerwärtige und gottlose Heuchelei der völlig zu Staatsbütteln degenerierten Kirchen, die jede antichristliche Politik abnicken, solange das Altparteienkartell ihre Privilegien nicht antastet. Die vermeintlich so unchristlichen und rechtsradikalen AfD-Politiker- und Wähler sind dann nämlich doch nicht so schlimm, als dass man auf ihr Geld verzichten würde. Die Frage, warum diesen Kirchen jedes Jahr hunderttausende Menschen davonlaufen und ob dies ja vielleicht etwas mit iher Anbiederei an die Politik und die Entartungen des Linksstaates zu tun haben könnte, stellen sich diese Kirchen nicht. Sie vergrößern stattdessen damit die Spaltung und Seelennot vieler Menschen und dass sie damit auch noch die allerletzte Glaubwürdigkeit einbüßen, ist ihnen offenkundig scheißegal, solange der Staat ihnen die Kirchensteuer eintreibt.
Ganz abgesehen davon, dass Topoi wie die “Klimarettung” und vor allem die Massenmigration wahre Goldgruben für sie sind, da auch sie vom Füllhorn der staatlichen Förderung der “Zivilgesellschaft” profitieren und sie zu Hauptprofiteuren der Asylindustrie zählen, fügen sich vor allem die evangelischen Kirchen, ganz im Geiste Luthers, dem liebedienerischen und servilen staatlichen Unterwerfungsverständnis und folgen dem herrschenden politischen Zeitgeist wie eh und je. Zum Glück haben immer mehr Deutsche diese abgrundtiefe Verlogenheit längst durchschaut und gründlich satt. Deshalb werden all die Anti-AfD-Verlautbarungen auch ins Leere laufen – weil sich kaum noch jemand für diese Staatskirchen interessiert, die aus Opportunismus Gräben aufreißen, die Ausgrenzung von kritischen Denkenden unter ihren Gläubigen betreiben und damit selbst am meisten gegen biblische Gebote verstoßen. Wie ähnlich sie ihren Amtsvorgänger der braunen und roten Diktatur in Deutschland inzwischen sind, fällt ihnen nicht einmal im Ansatz auf.
Der Friedensstifter 