Occidental culture


Germany is the country of scientists and engineers, of poets and thinkers (Dichter und Denker). Germany has produced more philosophers than all other nations combined. From 1800 to 1945 Germany was the leader in all scientific and all technical disciplines - by far.

Germany has produced by far the most philosophers of history, of all time. The northern, western and central European climate seems to be very good for thinking, even though many people believe it would be more at home in the south and east.

There is also a TV movie of Monty Python, in which two national teams of philosophers play football (“soccer”, dear Yanks) against each other, and these national teams could only be two: Germany and Ancient Greece. (**|**). So the Greatest (Germany) nation of thinking, which is in the northwest and middle of Europe, an the Secondgreatest (Ancient Greece) nation of thinking, which ist in the southeast of Europe, fight against each other in the film of Monty Python (**). These two great nations even have many, many teams of philosophers, while other nations only have a half team or even no player, which means: no philosopher. - So if you want to destroy the Western culture (civilization), you have to destroy the Germanic and Romanic nations - and note the sequence: first the Germanic nations! That’s the only way to do that with “success”.

Arminius was a German, namely an ancient German Cheruscan. He fighted for freedom and throw out the ancient Romans - not out of the whole Germany (a part of Germany was conquered by the Romans under Caesar and called Germania Superior and Germania Inferior) but from the free Germany, which was called Germania Magna or Germania Libera. And this historical fact ist what I mean when I say: defending freedom (defending - of course - against the civilized barbarism!). The civilization is the true barbarism as the history of ancient Romans and Germans shows us.

The Cherusci lived where I was born and growing up - an additional reason for me to choose this name (pseudonym or nickanme). The main reason is the historical fact of the fight against the CIVILIZED BARBARISM, in that case: the ROMAN BARBARISM. **

Arminius fighted slavery. He and many German tribes fighted the civilised barbarism, the Greek-Roman civilisation, at that time represented by the Roman Empire.

Caesar and Arminius lived nearly at the same time - Caesar died 1½ decades before Arminius was born -, Caesar was the embodiment of getting powerful by money, and Arminius was the embodiment of getting powerful by virtues (e.g. of his tribe). Arminius defeated the ancient Romans because the virtues defeated the money. Rome at this time was merely a decadent civilisation and ruled merely by money. If Caesar had not defeated the Gauls, he would have lost all his power and probably committed suicide. Today the Dollar Empire has very similar problems like the ancient Roman Empire had at Ceasar’s time.

In the year 9 Arminius defeated the ancient Romans by annihilating three legions of Augustus’ army - Augustus was the first „Ceasar“ after Caesar (himself!) -, and Augustus despaired of that fact.

At that time the ancient Romans had reached their maximum of power, but had similar birthrates as we have today because they were just as decadent as we are today. They tried to replace the lack of children by slaves who were captured by war and brought into colonies. But at last the decadence had been stronger, so the Romans became less and less, the Germans became more and more in the Imperium Romanum, and at last the Germans conquered the Imperium Romanum also by military actions.

Arminius stands for FREEDOM. In order to get freedom, to free his country and his people, he had to fight, to be a freedom fighter. That is right. If he had not lived, fighted for freedom, and defeated the Romans (but he has!), then not merely several German tribes (as it was!) but all German tribes, thus almost all of the then Europeans would have become slaves, the further history of the Roman emprie would have been a very much different one and with more slaves than it already had.

In the late ancient and early medieval times the Roman people were only a minority of the people who lived in their countries: Germans, the majority. For example: when the Franconian (Franconians / Franks are a tribe of the Germans) king Chlodwig I. converted from Arianism to Catholicism, he ruled over the country which later got the name France and over some regions in the south-west and west of the country which later got the name Germany. At that time there wasn't any real Roman in this land because the Germans had become Romans (Ancient Romans + Germans = later Romans). The word „Romans“ comes from (citizen of) „Rome“ and „German“, thus: Rome + German = Roman.

Ro(me) + (Ger)man = Roman.

It is not easy to compare 1st-century-Romans with 3rd- or 4th-century-Romans because latter were mostly Germans.

There are three kinds of linguistic contact:

1.) Superstratum (in German: Superstrat),
2.) Substratum (in German: Substrat),
3.) Adstratum (in German: Adstrat).

At that time that we are talking about there was a superstratum - which means: the conquerors loose most of their language and the conquered keep their language. It was because of the civilzed (bureaucratic etc.) dominance of the Latin language, which at the time, before the Germans conquered Gaul, was spoken by the „high society“ in Gaul (not France, which did not exist at that time. The Latin speech was established in state and administration, insofar as still available, and so the German language decreased (declined) and the Latin language became a mixed language (Latin + German = Roman, in this case: = French). **

Since the late ancient times the Celts have been irrelevant for history of the continental Europe - except when they brought Christianity to the continent. If you mean the Gauls and not the other Celts, you will have to read my last my post again and also Vollgraff's books. In Gaul the Germans as the conquerors became the majority, but that doesn't mean that the Gauls disappeared. Besides: The Gauls at that time didn't speak Gaulish, but Latin. Just because of their political / administrative structure, although declining, the German language couldn't come out on top in Gaul - except from the 4th to the 6th century. In Italy, Spain, Portugal, North-Africa the German language was established from the 5th to the 8th century (Spain, Portugal, North-Africa) and to the 15th and in some regions to modern times (Italy, especialla North-Italy, cp. Langobard / Lombard).

The English lived - as Angeln (“Angels”) and as Sachsen (“Saxons”) - in the north-west of Germany, namlely in a part, which is called Altsachsen (Old Saxony) or Niedersachsen (Nether Saxony = Lower Saxony and Netherlands), and in a part, which is called Angeln (a part of Schleswig-Holstein).

There was an actual Germany at that time, when this land was called Germania by the Latins, because the Germans referred to themselves as a community of fate, although they often (which also means: not at any time) were at odds with themselves. So the Germans referred to themselves sometimes as Germans and sometimes not - as they still do.

Europeans are a race, also known as the „white“ race. Race is a genetical / biological term.

Germans are not mixed. Mixed people are the French, Italians, Spanish (Spaniards), Portuguese because of the German conquerors in ancient and early medieval times, and also most of the South-East-Europeans and some North-Africans and also because of the German conquerors in ancient and early medieval times, besides the East-Europeans as well because of the German conquerors in medieval times.

I think many of the people of the US and many other countries outside from Europe do not know enough about Europe. And what they are told by the media, is largely lie.

The Holy Roman Empire of German Nation lasted 1000 years - exactly from 843 (treaty of Verdun) to 1806 (during the Napoleonic wars). And b.t.w.: Metternich was not Austrian but German, he was born in Koblenz; but that doesn’t matter very much because Austria had been a part of Germany until 1866 - and again from 1938 to 1945 as you probably know, for example: Hitler was an Austrian, he was born in Braunau (Inn). Since the end of the Second World War the Austrians have been confusing Metternich with Hitler () and saying Metternich was an Austrian and Hitler a German, although the reverse is true.

There were more than one attempt in the European history to form an European Union, and any time it was Germany that did the first step. The EU we now have is a product of six countries: West-Germany, France, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Luxemburg.

Earlier, in the end of the 19th and in the early 20th century the German government and the German Kaiser Wilhelm II. were going to build something like an European Union, then the First World War startet and the hope was destroyed. Cui bono? The idea of an European Union is good but it has to work. The current European Union doesn’t work well. So it has to be reformed - soon - or it is going to decay. Cui bono?“

What the German government started at that time was almost the same that Europe got later, after the two world wars, but it was just the beginnig of the First World War that destroyed this European Union, as if there were interests to prevent it (and such interests existed, especially in England).

The German Hanse or other Städtebünde (associations of cities in Germany and Italy) were the first attempts of creating something like an European Union. The project of an European Union has always had proponents and opponents. The last powerful European opponent was the British Empire. No wonder that there was no possibility for an European Union before the British Empire ended. The German Empire was no European opponent but the most powerful proponent, and - of course - the most powerful rival of the British Empire. The profiteer of the rivalry between the British and the German Empire was the USA - that is the reason why the Dollar Empire could be formed. So the current most powerful European opponent is the USA as a Dollar Empire, and merely other than economic unions with the USA are no European opponents, for example the NATO. So the NATO is important also for Europe; but again: I don’t want such an aggressive NATO, and I also don’t want the hierarchical structure the NATO has. We should reform the NATO, change it from an aggressive and unilateral into a defending and multilateral military union.

The consequences of the Thirty-Years-War (1618-1648) have shown how people with different religious denominations come together again - after such a great war with so much harm (! [in spite or because of that? {that is an interesting question}]) - and be able to live peacefully together.

The Nazis were never conservative, on the contrary, the conservative humans were their greatest enemies. The only real (!) resistance against the Nazis were the conservative humans.

Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg

Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg (committed an assassination on Hitler).

World War?

Relating to the countries or nations there was no “we” and no “they”, but there was a “we” of powerless people (99%) and a “they” of powerful people (1%) who won the war, became more rich and more powerful by the war.

The people didn't want war, the governments wanted war - sooner or later and more or less - because they had to want war at last.

Wernher von Braun in :  „Time“
Wernher von Braun, in: „Time“.
Germany's enemies did not primarily fight the Nazis, they primarily fighted Germany. And that was not merely an allied goal, but as well or probably more a nationalistic goal because fighting Germany was a chance to become rich, thus more powerful, namely to become the world power. Until 1945 Germany had been the one and only rival of the USA, in the matter of world power which the British Emipre had already lost during the World War I. Besides: the USSR at that time was de facto still a part of the Third World.

If the USA had not got e.g. the German technician and rocket engineer Wernher von Braun and his crew, there would never have been any landing on the moon (except a German one). Wernher von Braun was a Nazi, and after the World War II he was blackmailed: “either you help the USA or you will be put in prison”! His crew were also blackmailed. They all preferred to help the USA because they did not want to be jailed.

Other German scientists, technicians, engineers etc. were treated similarly - not only in the USA, but also e.g. in the USSR.

In the Second World War the powerful 1% fighted against the powerless 99%, and the powerfull 1% won - as always.

Globalism is nationalism in global dimensions. So on the one (quantitative) hand we currently have more nationalism, and on the other (qualitative) hand we currently have a different nationalism, namely a global one.

And there are also documentary films and the fact that all these Germans came to the US in May 1945 and lived there in a city which was founded just for that reason. Google for example this: Operation Paperclip or Operation Overcast.

Wernher von Braun und seine Mannschaft
104 German rocket scientists (aerospace engineers):
Wernher von Braun and his team at Fort Bliss in Texas, USA, 1945.

Operation Paperclip was the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) program in which more than 1,500 German scientists, technicians, and engineers were brought from Germany to the United States for employment after the World War II. It was conducted by the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA). In other words: It was a criminal act, one criminal act of the other crimninal acts of the greatest raid of all time.

B.t.w.: Nearly similar the number of the German scientists, technicians, and engineers who were brought in the Soviet Union (USSR) after the World War II.

The later rockets of the US - also of the SU (Soviet Union, Russia), the EU and China - that brought US people to the Moon are the German rockets V1 and V2, built by Wernher von Braun and his team during the Second World War at the rocket research institute in Peenemünde.

After the ascending United States of America and the descending British Empire had bombed Europe (especially Germany and robbing it, cp. the robbed patents, knowledge, scientists and technicians [by blackmailing them], and - amongst much others - territories [cp. the forced displacement of about 20,000,000 Germans] and the whole gold of the German Reich) the United States of America have been bombing it with immigrants because thatt will weaken it sooner or later. Why should we again defence the USA by sacrificing all European people?

Many of those immigrants and many of the indigenous Europeans have already built an alliance (a “colored“ alliance that units these very different humans because of the fact that they have the same enemy) and try to continue and reinforce the so-called “permanent revolution” by their terror, “civil war”. Why should we tolerate or even accept that?

Germany and the US (as well as 99% of the world) are still military enemies because there is no peace treaty for the Second World War (cui bono?).

The reasons why there is still no peace treaty to end the Second World War have also to do with those historical facts I described above. And why and for whom is it advantageous (cui bono?) that enemies of the Second World War which has not ended (because there is no peace treaty) became suddenly and remain partners, although one of this partners (Germany) always has to pay reparations, redemptions, reinstatement etc.? And since about the 1960's this partner has been sacrificing its people again, this time by abortion and enslaving to make a way for immigrants from countries which are bombed by the USA and Israel.

Will they ever stop blackmailing Germany?

I like the US people of all time - but not the US politics since 1913!

The consequences of the Thirty-Years-War have shown how people with different religious denominations come together again - after such a great war with so much harm (! [in spite or because of that? {that is an interesting question}]) - and be able to live peacefully together. My wife is a Lutheran (Protestant), I am a Catholic - no problem at all! We are of the opinion that also in the 1960's there were no problems between Catholics and Lutherans (Protestants ) in Germany.

I was born in the 1950’s in a 99%-Catholic village; during my time as a schoolboy and also later one of my best friends was a Lutheran (Protestant) - his family was the only Lutheran family (besides three other families which were refugees / displaced persons from East Prussia in East Germany) in our village, all other families were Catholic. There was no problem at all between all the Catholics and the Lutherans. And I did not make any other experience in other regions of Germany at that time. So relating to cantacts between Catholics and Lutherans I have been making no bad experiences in Germany since my first experience with such a contact.

And since I was about 15 years old I have been asking myself whether the Thirty-Years-War was the cause / reason of the fact that Catholics and Lutherans or Huguenots (they were refugees / displaced persons from France) and other denominations have had as well as no or even no problems with each other since the end of that Thirty-Years-War.

After bombing Europe (especially Germany and robbing it, cp. the robbed patents, knowledge, scientists and technicians [by blackmailing them], and - amongst much others - territories [cp. the forced displacement of about 20,000,000 Germans] and the whole gold of the German Reich) you have been bombing it with immigrants because (you know) that it will weaken it sooner or later. Why should we again defence the USA by sacrificing all European people?

The EU and the US are economical enemies (and that is something different, isn’t it?). And furthermore: Germany and the US (as well as 99% of the world) are military enemies because there is no peace treaty for the Second World War (cui bono?). This all is absolutely schizophrenic but true. The historical facts do not lie. Humans lie.

The Frankish Empire encompassing those countries which are later known as France, Germany, North Italy, and again later Austria, Switzerland, Holland, Belgium.

Look at this maps (and see where the center of Europe is and the Frankish Empire was!):


First it have been the Germanic tribes, especially the Frankish, one of the Germanic tribes; then it was the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation; in the beginning of the global colonisation it was Spain with Portugal, then the Great Powers as the „Concert of Europe“ - England, Germany (Austria and Prussia), France, Russia -, then another „Concert of Europe“ with England, Germany, Austria-Hungary, France, Italy, Russia (1871-1917/'18), and today USA - unfortunately. Yes, unfortunately! The USA are too far away from Europe, they don't know much aboout Europe, they are economically an enemy (thus: not a partner!) and militarily not a partner but the boss (**|**).

And please don't forget the church!

The erliest empire of the Germanic tribe which we call the Franks had its territory in the region which is today: Northwest Germany and Holland. That was founded in the 3rd century.



Austrians are Germans. Have you forgotten that?

We are talking aboout history and not about political correctness of the early 21st century.And the Habsburgs are a German royal dynasty.

Shall I show you a map again?

And the Austrian-Hungarian Empire you and somebody else mentioned is not the best example, if we want Europe to became safe, because that empire became more and more fragiile, and this fact was the trigger for the First World War.

Shall I tell you the historical facts?

There can not be any European development without Germany. Try to learn from history! Most humans can not learn from history - unfortunately.

Either the Europeans wiil do it furthermore by the German leadership, especially in an economical sense, or they try to find a new „concert“, for example: Germany, France, and Russia (but that is not easy).

Europe without Germany is dead!

The Austrians were and are Germans. It's only the current political correctness - thus: dicatatorship and propaganda - that wants you to believe in lies.

You (**) can't comprae the Hungarians with Austrians in that way. Have you herad of the „Deutscher Bund“ („German Federation“ )? It existed from 1815 to 1866 (German War between Prussia and Austria - it's called German War!). Bot Austria and Prussia were members and had no problems with each other. That is not long ago. And shall I show you the map and the fotos of 1938? Austria came back to the Reich 1918, because the Austrians wanted it. You have to accept the historical facts as well as I have to.

Excuse me, but you (**) have no idea. Austria was allied with Germany during the First World War and was part of Germany during the Second World war. Austria was not „neutral“!

Poland had provoked that Russian German alliance you (**) are sanctimoniously talking about. That provocation is also very well documented. And Russia wanted a revenche for the war with Poland in the early 1920's, when Poland misused the chaos of the soviet „revolution“. So Stalin was very much interested in a occupation of Poland - that is also very well documented.

B.t.w.: Smaller nations are often more aggressive than the others. You should know that,

The Austrians WANTED the Anschluß. There are many stereotypes (clichés) which have made you (**) blind for some historical facts. The Soviet „revolution“ (b.t.w.: it was paid) caused a reaction; so fascism emerged, and most of the fascists were former communists (the best known examples: Mussolini, Hitler, Goebbels); and the Second World War was a reaction to the (results of the) First World War and to the Soviet „revolution“, the danger of communism („red danger“). What is currently said about this time has not very much to do with that what really happened.

Merkel was a communist. Did you know that?

The European Union is dominated by Germany. Yes. Why not? There is no other possibility. Otherwise the European Union would already be dead. Is that what some powerful Europeans and their followers could want? Yes, obviously, because many of the currently powerful Europeans are like the former Soviets, and this Neo-Soviets become more and more and say that the reverse would be true, but it is not. B.t.w.: Some of the former communists said that the communism will come anyway - with or without a „revolution“, with or without a „Soviet Union“. Now, everyone in the West thinks the communism has vanished, but it has not; the communsim has never been stronger than today.

@ Those who want to find scapegoats.

Trying to drive a peg into the good relationship between France and Germany (for example by using rhetoric with false clichès) does not help to solve the problems but adds many more problems.

Okay, the relationship between Merkel and Hollande is not as good as it was between Kohl and Mitterrand or Schmidt and Giscard d’Estaing or Adenauer and de Gaulle; but the relationship between Merkel and Hollande is - of course - not only caused by Merkel but also by Hollande; both are not really qualified for the current problems. France is bankrupt and has its „force de frappe“ (which is eventually useless, at least in the case of bankrupty), and the situation in Germany is just the reverse one. Maybe Germany should search for another „best friend“, but maybe it would be better, if Germany and France found back to their good relationship of the past.

If you want to find scapegoats, then you will probably find some in your bedroom!

You (**) seem to have problematic prejudices. Stop driving a peg into something which does not need a peg.

Do you know Metternich? Obviously not. He was Prussian, although from Koblenz - but during Metternich's time Koblenz was Prussian; he was a kind of an „Austrian Bismarck“, but without Metternich Austria and the rest of Germany would have become more Prussian than the German Federation (Deutscher Bund) was: Prussia and Austria did a good work together (b.t.w.: Prussia and Holland too); and this alliance lasted from the terrible Napoleonic Wars (more than 50% of his soldiers were Germans) till the the end of the Second World War or probabaly even till the end of the „Cold War“.

Do you know Bismarck? Obviously not. Bismarck was the last Kanzler (chancelor) who governed as if he was the father of the House Habsburg. What he did was right. He would have occupied Austria after the German War (Austria vs. Prussia; 1866), if he had wanted to, but he did not want to.

I don't follow your prejudices, because they are false.

You are always playing „X“ off against „Y“. France against Germany, Austria against Prussia: that is what you want, and it is - of course - nonsense! Stop whining about Prussians like this one and his alter ego.

Your „statements“ do not help when it comes to constructively say something about the current European problems. The reverse is true: your „statements“ increase those problems very much.

B.t.w.: I have lived in Austria.

You (**) are an agitator, a bater! And you want war! It is not Germany but merely its politicians who are in bed with bankers - but they are not in bed to raid and plunder Greece. Your agitation is evil. Greece wanted the Euro. Greece itself had the choice, and the German politicians (i.e. Waigel) did not want Greece to become a member of the Euro system, but Greece and the other members of the Euro system wanted Greece to become a member of the Euro system. Now the Greek are bankrupt - caused by themselves. (And b.t.w.: one of my children is genetically 50% Greek; so I don't say anything against Greece because of agitation - I am often in Greece and I know many Greeks!)

My contribution to your hateful agitation: You are not a Dutchman (Deutschmann = German), you are a Slav(e).

Your (**) agitation is very evil!

Do other West Europaen people not work? Shame on you!

If someone hates Jewsih people, then he / she is called „Anitisemite“ (although Arabs are also Semites); if someone hates US people, then he / she is called „Antiamerican“ (although i.e. Argentinians are also Americans); but if someone hates Prussians (like you and this one and his alter ego), then he / she is not called „Antiprussian“ or „Antigerman“ or „Antigermanic“ (although i.e. Englishmen and many other humans are also Germans or Germanics). That is not fair but full of hate!

History is not fair, thus: learn from history!

What a nonsense! You (**) seem to feel very inadequate. Bismarck did not cause the World Wars. Stop whining about Prussians like this one and his alter ego.

Okay, vote for France, thus for more poverty, for more poverty to more people, for more poverty to all people.

The Germans did not want the Euro! And if there were no Euro, then everything / anything would not be alright, but the Euro-countries would have less problems.The Germans did not want the Euro, so they are not guilty. The German government has nothing to do with the German people. But most of the other countries which have the Euro wanted the Euro, also and especially France wanted the Euro.

It seems that you (**) have also no idea of economics.

The question is: Why is there so much hate, envy, and esentment in the world? Look, you are speaking about science. Germany had been the leader in science for centuries. The Second World War was - whatever it was in other senses - the chance for the enemies of Germany, especially USA and USSR, to become richer, thus more powerful by robbing and plundering Germany, the Germans, their wealth, their Gold, their patents, their scientists, their technicians, thus their main production factor: intelligence !

Now we have the same situation as we had just before the World Wars. It starts with lies, then threats and declarations follow, and in the end there is war as the instrument for the goals.

If we are not careful, we will soon experience a Third World War or something like a civil war which is even beastlier than a world war.

The harbringers, the heralds are already everywhere, the agitators are on their „stage“. „Will there be war in Europe before 2050?“ (**|**) - that is my question, and sometimes I think I should have asked: „Will there be war in Europe before 2030?“

The war against France was already discounted at that time: the German War was in 1866 and the French-Prussian (a.k.a French-German) War was in 1870-1871. The French were too weak and too stupid, oh sorry: too naive old cows.

You (**) have never heard of Herder? Are you sure that you are an ILP member? Have you ever herad of philosophy?

I am not a Kantian and not a Schopenhauerian.

Other famous Prussian German philosophers are Christian Wolff, Johann Gottlieb Fichte (more Brandenburgian than Prussian), Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (more Prussian-Saxon than mere Prussian), Oswald A. G. Spengler (also more Prussian-Saxon than mere Prussian). Do you know them? Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was a Swabian, not a Prussian, but he became a „Swabian in Prussian commission“.

„National Socialistic“ because of the emphasis that there was a national instead of an international socialistic party - it was directed against the Soviet „revolution“. Fascism is the reaction to the Soviet „revolution“ and the propaganda of internationality. So „national“ in „National Socialist“ means „against internationalism“, „anti-internationalism“. „Socialist“ in „National Socialist party“ is also referring to the Soviet „revolution“ and the internationalism. „We don't need a Marxistic, communistic, internationalistic socialisms, because we have our own socialism, a national one“- that is meant.

Hitler was a Mussolini fan, Hitler was an Austrian, not a Prussian (there were not many Prussians but many Bavarian (Austrians are also Bavarians) fascists. Again: Fascism was a strong response to the Soviet „revolution“, to communism (Marxism, Leninism) or any other egalitarianism. Most of the fascists were former communists, thus: they knew exactly what they were fighting against.

You (**) are again confusing something: George Bush said: „Those who are not with us are against us“.

You (**) are always searching for scapegoats. That is wrong - and not only wrong, because that is dangerous too.

The main problem of the EU is not the German government; the main problem of the EU is the EU itself. The EU is a dictatorship. Nobody is allowed to select the rulers of the EU. They and the global bankers give the instructions and orders. Merkel did not say that (for example) the Greek must have the Euro. She tries to bind all countries of the Euro system and to extend the EU. Not only to you but also to me, this is the wrong politics, but who would do it in a different (perhaps: better) way than she does? She is not mainly responsible for the guidelines and principles. The EU and the bankers are mainly responsible for that. And if you now say that she is lying „in bed“ (**) with them, then I can tell you that the other national politicians of Europe are also lying in bed with them and do nothing else. The EU problem is not mainly a national Problem, because the EU is not a nation but an empire.

The EU is not „part of the problem“ (**), the EU is the problem!

You (**) are behaving like Hitler - always searching for scapegoats („Prussian ethics, Bismarck, Merkel“). That's crazy.

What you are saying is no constructive contribution but only agitating, in ILP words: derailing and trolling!

Germany exists as long as France - since the treaty of Verdun (843), Mersen (870), and Ribemont (880). You mean the national unity. Okay. The national unity of Germany and of Italy happened at the same time. But again: The EU problem is not a national problem but a problem of the EU itself, an empire problem! Do you know that?

There is no alternative - except the end of the Euro system and probably even the end of the EU.

The French are not going to do it, because they are not able to do it. It would be the wrong way. Believe me.

Germany is stronger than Italy or France, even stronger than Italy and France togehter. See, the problem is that the economical and political power is not equally distributed. So the most powerful one has to manage it. Okay, „Germany should relax a bit now“ (**), but there is definitely no alternative - except the end of the Euro system and probably even the end of the EU. Okay, as far as I'm concerned.

Okay, I don't want to take your illusions about Italy and France away. But they are not able to do what you want them to do. And what will happen after the end of the Euro or even the EU? I guess: War! Maybe there will be war anyway. But I don't like wars, especially civil wars. Maybe I will not experience it, but my children and all the other occidental humans who are now young will probably experience it, and I don't want them to experience it.

Maybe one of the more peaceful solutions which can lead to the end of the Euro system or even to the end of the EU could be that either Germany or France would leave the Euro system or even the EU. France will not do it because its insolvency will soon lead to war, probably civil war. Germany will not do it because the German government as the enemy of the most German people will punish - for example: jail - all those Germans, and then something like a civil war will happen as well as it will in the case of France. Maybe the best solution for the end of the Euro system or even the end of the EU would be, if we started there where it currenly suffers: at the Euro system. Greece should leave the Euro System, but that would not be enough; some other countries should follow, for example also Italy, and that would probably lead to a rethink in the„heads“ of the EU rulers. So, step by step, this could lead to the complete end of the Euro system, and maybe to even more. At least, this would be a more peaceful way than most of the other ways. But I guess that the EU dictators will "help" those „deserters“, thus - in reality - they will kill them.

Most of this gold and silver and other rare material things are stolen from Germany (1945). When will the US respectively the Fed (!) give the whole gold (especially the whole gold of the Reichsbank - I don't mean the Nazi gold, altough that should also not be in US or Fed ownership, but it is), silver and other rare material things back to Germany?

1) Tomorrow.
2) After the next „crash“.
3) After the peace treaty.
4) Never.

I know that this is a „tender subject“.

The Germans are the people of poets and thinkers, scientists and philosophers, technicians and engineers, musicians and inventors, also of sports and work, okay, and, for example and not to forget, of the real Faust as well as the concept „Faust“. No surprise that the German language sounds more abstract, distant, accurate, and perfect. German is a language for science and philosophy and other abstract aspects. French, for example, expresses more emotions, if one compares it with Germanic languages (German, English, Duch, Flemish, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Icelandic, ... etc.). .... But why should we value this like we value money, cars, books, or music (for example music from Bach, Mozart, Beethoven)? If one shows emotions while speaking and has not the suitable language for emotions, then this one is at risk of being falsely classified, because „it is said“ that this one is not allowed to show emotions because of this one's language. If one has the suitable language for emotions and does not show emotions while speaking, then this one is at risk of being falsely classified, because „it is said“ that this one must show emotions because of this one's language.

And one more point:

Europe has a miserable demography, and the people from other continents, especially people of afroasiatic languages invade and intrude Western, Northern, and Central Europe. So maybe that the Europeans will experience something that the Indians experienced a very long time ago. And the economic development in Europe will probably become disastrous and end in a tragedy with Europe as a Third World continent. We should value this in the first place.

There are some ILP members (**) who are indirectly declaring war on Europe, especially on Germany, without any rationale and justification. I don't know whether, and if yes, which drugs they take, but their statements are based on their envy, resentments, inferiority complexes, and - of course - stupidness. That is merely good for those who become rich by war - who are few but all the more misanthropic.

So maybe we will have war in Europe before 2050 (**), and some ILP members will then be proud of being a tiny part of the cause. Shame on you!

Germany is the leader - but it did and does not want to be the leader but had and has to be it because of the economical and political facts . But okay, now we have this facts that have been making and leading to the scapegoat role for so long.

Destroy the motor of a car, and this car will not function anymoe.
Destroy Germany as the motor of the EU and the Eurozone, and the EU and Eurozone will not function anymoe.

Since the wars in Central and Southwest Asia and in Africa that are caused by the USA and Israel the number of immigrants in Germany has increased gigantically.
Since the beginning of the huge problems in Greece Germany's debts have also increased gigantically.
This obviously never ending demographical and economical war will lead to the fact that the EU and Eurozone will not function anymoe.

And this can't be in the interest of all Europeans.

Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts (also in UK and Ireland).

Two early recruits to the British Free Corps (BFC):
SS-Mann Kenneth Berry and SS-Sturmmann Alfred Minchin,
with German officers, April 1944.
A French volunteer of the 33rd Waffen Grenadier Division
of the SS Charlemagne (1st French) - took an active part in
the Battle of Moscow (1941) and the Battle of Berlin (1945).

Russia was not in war with Japan untill the war was not over in Europe, because both had a treaty to not attack each other. So the Soviets had only one front, namely the western front. But then the fact that the war was over in Europe became the welcomed chance for the Soviets to attack Japan and to occupy Japanese islands. And so the Soviets did. Please do not forget: The Soviets were aggressive imperialists, and they would never had survived a two-front war. So they had to wait with their attack against Japan until the war in Europe was over.

Some of those German weapons were not used during the war, and many current experts say that if the Germans had used them they would have won the war.

Some facts of the European Union statistics in 2016:

1) German net contribution: 9,976,038,941 Euro.
2) French net contribution: 3,806,907,859Euro.
3) Italian net contribution: 3,437,179,157 Euro.
4) Dutch net contribution: 3,362,533,781 Euro.
5) Swedish net contribution: 1,259,462,800 Euro.
6) Danish net contribution: 628,960,212 Euro.
7) Austrian net contribution: 478,332,030 Euro.
8) Finnish net contribution: 264,432,284 Euro.
9) British net contribution: 245,700,046 Euro * (* because of the rebate of ca. 5,200,200 Euro).

All other 18 members of the EU an the EU itself (of course!) are net receivers. The biggest ne receivers are Greece and Poland. That is no coincidence.

Source: **

In addition: Germany also pays the depts of all bankrupt EU countries.

Germany has always been the biggest net payer of the EU. Therefore the EU was founded.

The EU and the Euro mean the exploitation of Germany.

Otherwise this EU-monster could and would never have been founded.

Here the example of the year 2008:

EU - Geber und Nehmer

Edward Harrison (from Credit Writedowns) wrote:

„This chart is in German, but most of the terms should be clear. The top half of the chart are the net payers of existing fiscal transfers within the EU, Germany being the largest, followed by Italy, France, and the Netherlands. The biggest net beneficiaries are on the bottom half, with Greece in first place, followed by Poland, and Spain.“ **

Source: European Commission. **

About Edward Harrison:

Edward Harrison is the founder of Credit Writedowns and a former career diplomat, investment banker and technology executive with over twenty years of business experience. He is also a regular economic and financial commentator on BBC World News, CNBC Television, Business News Network, CBC, Fox Television and RT Television. He speaks six languages and reads another five, skills he uses to provide a more global perspective. Edward holds an MBA in Finance from Columbia University and a BA in Economics from Dartmouth College. Edward also writes a premium financial newsletter. Sign up here for a free trial.

The population density in the EU-27:

Population density in the EU-27

Population density in the EU-27

Blaue Banane

Zwei Bananen

Source: **

The military household belongs to the national household. If there was no EU, then most of the nations would not have enough money for their military. Germany pays the most by far (namely about 40 times more than the UK for example - compare the statistical data), as I said quite several times, and the military is also paid by it, because otherwise there would be no money for the military.

The military household is no household of the moon. It is not possible to separate the military household from the rest of the household.

You (**) can do me the favor and say to your government that it should leave the EU, and you will see that the UK would be there where it was before it joined the EU - with a desolate household. They all depend on German money. That is how the EU works. So each EU „nation“, if one can call it still so, can be blackmailed. That is how the EU works -regardless whether you and I like it or not? I do not like it.

It is also not possible to separate the social household from the rest of the household. No part of the household can be separated from the whole houshold. Like it or not.

It is just logic and mathmatics.

You have to to put all that numbers of the several contributions together. Do some mathematics, please. In addition: There is no big difference between the military contributions of the UK and Germany. But looking at the statistics and data does merely make sense then, if you combine them together, because the money they spend does have to come from somewhere, Germany's contribution is 40 times higher than the contribution of the UK.

The UK may sometimes have spent more money on its military than Germany on its but not always.

The UK spent much on ist military during the 1930’s too, but it did not have the capacity of spending more than Germany.

The UK and France did not want Germany to spend much on its military. Then - the more the world had become globalistic - the UK and France noticed that they - bit by bit - had to spend more on their military than Germany on its. And what was their conclusion? „Germany must spend more money on its military!“ That is odd. What has Germany been doing since then? Germany spend more money on its military again. So what you are critizising is nothing more than „peanuts“, a bagatelle. You have to value it in the longer term.

And remember:

You needed alomost all nations of the world, especially the nations USA and the USSR, to defeat Hitler's invasion, because Hitler stopped the invasion of the Uk in order to invade the USSR and the USA. The whole world against Germany! 6 years agaist the whole world - that is merely possible with a huge military industry, a good military (army, organization, ... etc.), economical and administrative system. By the way: The current Germany has still a huge military industry and also still a good economical and administrativ system, but the difference to earlier times is that Germany exports its weapons, especially to the USA and Israel.

It was the 1929 starting World Depression (also known as „Great Depression“) that caused it, but the NSDAP did never get a majority.

Here are the results of the German Reichstag elections from 1919 to 1933:

- Nationalversammlung und Reichstag (Sitzverteilung in Prozent) -
(einschl. USPD) **
SPD Zentrum BVP Sonstige
(ab 1930 DStP)**
19.01.1919   5,23 38,72 21,62 -   1,66 17,81   4,51 10,45 -
06.06.1920 19,17 22,22 13,94 4,58   1,96   8,50 14,16 15,47 -
04.05.1924 13,14 21,19 13,77 3,39   6,14   5,93   9,53 20,13   6,78
07.12.1924   9,13 26,58 14,00 3,85   5,88   6,50 10,34 20,89   2,84
20.05.1928 11,00 31,16 12,63 3,26 10,37   5,09   9,16 14,87   2,44
14.09.1930 13,34 24,78 11,79 3,29 12,48   3,47   5,20   7,11 18,54
31.07.1932 14,64 21,88 12,34 3,62   1,81   0,66   1,15   6,09 37,83
06.11.1932 17,12 20,72 11,99 3,42   2,05   0,34   1,88   8,90 33,56
05.03.1933 12,52 18,55 11,28 2,94   1,08   0,77   0,31   8,04 44,51

The World Depression („Great Depression“) and the following disastrous politics started 1929. Look at the election results for the NSDAP and notice when they really exploded. Then you will know why they exploded.

Reichstagswahlen von 1919 bis 1933

The dictatorship was already a fact when the last election (1933) happened, and even this election did not bring the majority to the NSDAP (Nazis).

The exact name of the „Holy Roman Empire“ was „Holy Roman Empire of German Nation“. So it was a German Empire. And since 1438 it had been ruled by the house of Habsburg, in the mean time, but merely for three years (1742-1745) by the house of Wittelsbach. It was dissolved after about 1000 years, in 1806, during the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon wanted a French empire instead of the German empire. The whole Occidental history can be described as the attempts of copying the ancient Roman empire. The EU is such an attempt too. But note: The modern Europeans are especially jealous, and therefore I do not believe in the EU project as it is put into practice. The jealous neighbors of Germany are whining that „the EU is dominated by Germany“, but in reality the EU has always been dominated by Germany. So what? It is because of this jealousy and the lack of a real European solidarity that makes it so difficult to find a real political unit. It is not the Old Europe but the New Europe that lacks a real European solidarity too much. So if the economical part of the EU becomes problematic, then the total collapse will follow, because the non-economical parts of the EU will still be too weak.

So here is again someone (**) who is saying that all Non-German people of the EU are too stupid, at least not intelligent enough to leave the EU. They have always had the option to leave the EU.

Do you really not know why they have not been willing to leave the EU?

The Angle, Saxons and the Frisians resp. the Jutes (some historians say that the Frisians (Frisii), other historians, especially the language historians, say that the Jutes were the third Germanic tribe) conquered Britannia which became Great Anglo-Saxonia or Great Anglo-Saxony.

It is very probable that Scotland has still an interest in becoming independent from England. And now remember that the Scottish independence referendum took place on 18 September 2014, and immediately after the vote for the so-called „Brexit“ the Scottish said that they wanted to have a new independence referendum. Additionally the Northern Irish, especially the people of the Sinn Fein party, said at the same time that they wanted to reunify with the independent Irish again. So there are two regions of the UK that try to make use of the „Brexit“ just the other way around, because they stay in the EU, if this two independencies become a fact.

Wien (Vienna) was the capital when the Habsburgs ruled the Reich. There were many capitals. And in the beginning of this Reich the capitals even changed, because the Kaiser travelled through his country (so the Saxon, the Frankish-Salian, and the Staufian Kaiser, for example).

Europe has no chance to come together, if the poblems are not solved. Again: The Holy Roman Empire of German Nation existed for more than 1000 years. No other political entity has reached such a great age - except the unholy Imperium Romanum that has reached the same age.

Another good example is the German Hanse (Hansa), the Hanseatic League inside (and later also outside) the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation.

„Hanse“ („Hansa“) was the Middle Low German word for a convoy, and this word was applied to bands of merchants traveling between the Hanseatic cities whether by land or by sea. Hanse means a union of towns (hanse towns) that started in Lübeck (North Germany).It was very successful, and only the discovery of America could gradually stop it.

At Nietzsche’s time the distribution of Roman Catholics and Lutheran Protestants in Germany was almost the same as it is today: fifty/fifty (50% Roman Catholics and 50% Lutheran Protestants), but the Lutheran Protestants had more power because after the German War (Prussia and allies versus Austria and allies - 1866) Prussia was the main power in Germany, whereas before 1866 and since a long time Austria had been the main power in Germany. The statement that Lutheran or other Protestants would be „weaker“ than other Christians (Roman Catholic and Orthodox ones) is not true. But that statement is probably Nietzsche’s true self-description, because he was a Lutheran Protestant - and „weak“.

Christianity - as well as Buddhism - is merely „weaker“ in the sense that it is more about love and peace, whereas certain other religions are merely „stronger“ in the sense that they are more about hate and war. Whether one can say that „weak“ means „evil“ and „strong“ means „good“ is not only an ethical question but also a question of how one wants or not wants the people to live together, thus a question of the form of government. Nietzsche was against democracy and socialism, and because of the German and English example of democracy and socialism he thought democracy and socialism were caused by Protestantism. To him the causal chain was: Platonism => Christianity (Platonism for the people?) => Protestantism (Christianity for the people?) => democracy or/and socialism (Protestantism for the people?).

Germany and its colonies:

The German Colonial Empire

The German Colonial Empire

Germany today:

Deutschland oder: Das Sozialamt der Welt

But wait .... Germany’s new colonial empire:

The new German Colonial Empire

The Ancient German or the Ancient Gallican tribes voted just because of the same interests they had as a small group. If the number of each of their tribes had not been as small as it had been, then the most votings would not work well or only work in the case of a same interest of something like a nation. Examples are (1) the unseccessful of almost all Gallican tribes under Vercingetorix against the Romans in the year 58 BC and (2) the successful war of almost all German tribes under Arminius against the Romans in the year 9. Almost all of those tribes were united for a relatively short time because they had a common interest, but the tribes - and thus: not the nation - had decided this by voting. If they had already been a real nation, then they would have decided like the current nations do today: according to the corruption.

But where do we have such tribes today? There are not really such tribes anymore (and „gangs“ are no tribes in the traditional sense). That is the problem too, namely of the whole world of today.

Although or because (!) he had become a Roman citizen and officer, the German Arminius (18 B.C. - 21 A.D.) decided to fight against the Romans and to become a free German again.

In the year 12 B.C. Arminius’ homeland became a Roman province.

In the year 9 A.D. Arminius’ homeland became part of the free Germany (Germania Magna) again.



Better death than dishonor. Better being dead than enslaved.

This motto is also true when it comes to thinking and can be seen as the reason or motif for my username here.

The Franks were and are Germans too. In the frist century the Franks settled in the today's East-Germany. The Franks are (1) the ancestors of the current Franken who live especially in the North of Bayern (Bavaria), in the East of Württemberg (Wuerttemberg), in the Southwest of Hessen (Hesse, Hessia), and - as Nether-Franks - in Rheinland-Pfalz (Rhineland-Palatinate), in the West (Nordrhein) of Nordrhein-Westfalen (North Rhine-Westphalia), in parts of the so-called „Netherlands“ and Belgium; and they also are (2) the ancestors of the most French.

Some Franks - as well as e.g. Saxons, Angles, Frisians, Jutes et al. - stayed where they were at that said time, others moved on and conquered foreign territories others moved on and conquered foreign territories where they later founded kingdoms.

The most important argument against the globalistic dictatorship is freedom, especially in the sense of free thought, free speech, and autarky.

My username stands for freedom. In the year 9, Arminius decided to fight for freedom (with a bit less wealth) and against slavery (wtih a bit more wealth). The German tribes on the other side of the Rhine and (later) also of the limes had more wealth but less freedom. The German tribes of the free Germania Magna had more freedom but less wealth. So what? Who cares? The price for it was it worth. In any case: the trade between free German tribes and the Roman empire grew.

Sometimes it is just better to fight than to always look after more and more wealth.

Okay, we know that humans have never been and will never be absoulutely free. But humans can and should be relatively free. This relative freedom requires a permanent fight. Are you ready for that fight?

A nation is the largest political, societal and economical form that is capable of guaranteeing a relatively freedom - especially free thought, free speech and autarky - of its population. A „global society“ would not be capable of guaranteeing all that. In practice, there is no „global state“, no „global society“, no „global human kind“, no „global humanity“. A „global political and societal form“ is only theory, an ideal that the globalistic dictators are using in order to get more and more control over their slaves.

The Holy Roman Emipre of German Nation lasted 1000 years: from 843 to 1806. The Frankish empire that Karl der Große (Charles the Graet) established was the predecessor of the Holy Roman Emipre of German Nation. Both had not really to do with the Ancient Roman empire - unless one accepts wishful thinking as reality. All of this Kaisers wanted to be like the Caesars were, but the Holy Fathers (popes) of the Christian Church wanted the same. So, we have two sides of this mytho-motivity: a more secular one and a more sacral one. This time was over in 1806, when almost everything became secularized, although after this secularization there was the Restoration, namely from 1815 till 1848 or, in some regions, even till 1870.

The following tree (lime) is far more than 1000 years old and can be found in Puch (near Fürstenfeldbruck):

Über 1000 Jahre alte Linde
Far More Than 1000 Years Old Tree (Lime) in Puch (near Fürstenfeldbruck), Germany.


- Register -

  Occidental culture