Internet Statement 2015-45
Maria Weiss september 16, 2015 Of course not. There can be no question. The capitalists and their government never ask the people what they are wanting. They always do what seems to them advantageous for their profits and for maintaining their system. But that does not always work.
It is remarkable that all these floods of refugees which
are on the move at the time, mainly all have a single goal: Germany. How
does this come then?
Another chapter is the organizational approach to these inflows. That's partly really venturesome. Take the example of Berlin. In Berlin there is one single body in a single district, Moabit, where all refugees are registered, which arrive in Berlin, the so-called "LaGeSo", the State Office for Health and Social Affairs. That cannot be true, one might say there. This is completely absurd. However, that's not so surprising for Berlin bureaucratic conditions, because every day, churning out, it produces absurdities, not to mention the BER Airport, never finished, and other abstruse major projects. But it stinks to high heaven, as at present for weeks was coming to light the inability of the authorities. And if not so many people would try to mitigate the consequences by helping individually, then the disaster would be even greater. It went so far that the other day the president of the Berlin Chamber of Physicians had to warn, that under such inhumane conditions, as this is handled there, the risk of epidemics should not be ruled out.
So the problem can not be tackled. Is there not another way? Can we not give effect to a distribution key for the whole country?
Merkel's speech on peace, joy, - no, not lovey-dovey, but welcome speech with aggressive undertones
If you listen to the records of this woman, you might think that you are living in the country which is the most democratic, the best, the most peaceful and the most friendly towards immigration in the world. Everybody is welcome here, everybody may come here, everyone is equal, no one is suppressed, no one is rejected, because here's enough space for all of them. This is a mockery of the facts, and this is obvious, as everyone can experience day by day. What's more, criticism is not welcome. That's what you have to hear at least from this speech in undertones. One might almost think, this is Erich Honecker speaking. The latter always had these aggressive undertones, according to the motto: We're all in agreement. But Alas, you dare to criticize what I say. Then you'll be pushed into the corner, and even more than that.
It may be that Mr. Erdogan has taken several million refugees from Syria and Iraq in his country. But neither he, nor anyone else in Turkey, would come up with the idea to designate that country as a country of immigration. So idiotic is only the German ruling class and some of their political exponents.
This new wave of immigrants could even be compared with the emigrants wave of the 1990s, namely as a kind of brake on social progress in the country.
Recently it was said in a news message: In the coming 5 years, 20 per cent of the current staffs of establishments have to be replaced, 20 percent will retire and must be replaced by younger workers! But they are not there, these young and younger workers! Due to the demographic development, they do not exist. Furthermore must be ever considered thoroughly what that means really. You come here to the following conclusion:
It is the active part of the population, which will be increasingly compensated or replaced, to a large extent, by the current immigration. And what that means in consequence, that cannot be assessed sufficiently serious enough. This development applies to the entire structure, and increasingly affects even partly the essence of a country. And such a thing should not be compared with a form of declaration of war against the own people? They probably are going crazy. Of course it is something like that, the problem is just lying in the fact, among other things, that the eyes have to remain closed before this consequence, in submissiveness to the international overlord here, and due to this the whole thing will pass through of course, more or less smoothly, especially since the pseudo-leftists and revisionists, of course, principally close their eyes before something like that; the Greens, of course, agree with it totally, due to well-known reasons, according to their whole thoroughly-reactionary class nature and vision of society; and the remaining part of the bourgeoisie obviously is closing the eyes to that, while the conservative parts are ducking, or perform some sort of Merkel dance, with which they try to meet everyone's demands.
The serious threat that lies in this development or begins to take shape, is certainly seen in other European countries. For example, in conservative parts of France, but also in some Eastern European countries such as Poland and others, and also in Russia.
Germany has by virtue of its history a particularly difficult position in this respect in order to defend itself against such threats in a right manner. Such a strategy of international reaction is not too hard to be seen through, and it is seen through. And it is obvious, that the Rights seek their own way to profit from it, this necessarily could have been anticipated. But this is wanted by those international forces, as well as certain national forces, which are driving all this forward.
Another point of interest, or even the basis for the present situation is the following: The role of the US in cooperation with Saudi Arabia in supporting and stimulating the so-called "Islamic State", which is currently mainly providing the pretext for the wave of refugees to Europe, and of course not only the pretext, but the real reason. And it is significant, how the United States express themselves presently: the current wave of refugees allegedly is a "European problem"! The United States itself had nothing to do with it. More of cynicism one can hardly imagine. But it really is still not enough, so that certain European leaders, such as our own political leadership, perhaps even take notice, much less they are inclined to draw consequences. Or is it all wanted by them, too? That's still the question, of whether that will not cost dearly for them. There are apparently still forces that simply are learning nothing from history, even though they themselves, on the other hand, constantly evoke history. They themselves cannot draw any conclusions from it.
Somehow these people (refugees) also have a strange relationship with their own state. That's also expressed this way. And even more does this apply to countries such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. In Afghanistan the (open) state of war has ended already more than a year ago. Why right now Afghans run away en masse and desperately want to get to Germany? This is obvious and can not be explained readily. Especially after they have not previously run away for decades, although there was a war in Afghanistan. There must be other reasons. There must be a connection, that someone lures these folks away to Germany, as well as to Europe.
By the way, the right of asylum refers to political persecution, and that all these people who come here now, en masse, hundreds of thousands, are all politically persecuted, I doubt that, to say it frankly.
After all, it can not be overlooked that the Nazis once found international support, especially from the US, as a bulwark against the revolution which they wanted in no case. For this purpose, they had to take the risks. And that's not different today.
Europe is not only the cradle of modern civilization, but also the cradle of capitalism. From here, this social system prevailed against feudalism, especially during the 19th century well into the twentieth, and from there it went to the US, and not vice versa, as some with few knowledge of history could possibly assume today, at the present world situation and in the face of the propaganda.
But Europe is not only the cradle of capitalism, but also that socialism, of its historical opponent, which also began to develop in the 19th century, and now it has come once around the globe, and in some countries in the meantime it prevailed with great success, although there were also significant setbacks here and there, and certainly in the future it will not be otherwise.
Today, capitalists are forced to destroy productive forces.
Their adversary, socialism, does not have to do the same, but on the contrary,
it is essentially destined to develop productive forces.
„Turks at the gates of Vienna“?
Merkel's policy to bring all the Syrians in here, which then form the vanguard for the Turks and others? What is this? Whose is the strategy? Perhaps of the United States or any part of them?
After Merkel's totally uncontrolled policy, letting the refugees in from Syria via Hungary and Austria, then, however, it encountered harder resistance in the bourgeoisie, or in parts thereof, and the Interior Minister was obliged to call a halt; at this time Cem Özdemir, the former chairman of the Greens, came out with the following proposal, we should anchor Islam in the German constitution.
Besides the fact that this idea is completely absurd, because this country has a secular constitution, which declares all religions and religious directions, being represented here, to be a private matter, the question should be asked to Mr. Özdemir: Which sort of Islam does he mean? Sunni or Shiite? Is that to mean that the struggles between the various religious currents in the Middle East will be transferred to the European territory? In whose interest is this? Who has speculated in the past, on whether Europe needs something like a Peace of Westphalia? It is known, of what the latter had been the consequence.
By the way, Cem Özdemir began his political career in 1990. He is, so to speak, a sort of product or admixing product of the so-called reunification. I'll give you three guesses, what kind of forces have pushed that forward here. At that time, this man has drawn under his spell some especially young people from the two different parts of Germany. Had he then come out with this proposal, he would have had very poor success. However, one must note the fact that the Green’s component in this reunification of Germany certainly not has played the most progressive role - to express it with understatement - , but it endeavored to anchor rather the opposite in the interest of the international capitalists, especially of US capitalists. The result can be seen today. It always emerges stronger and more blatantly.
For the next global crisis, to deal with competitors, the United States are requiring such a European continent that presents itself as unindependent as possible, limited in its action skills, and bogged down in internal disputes. These developments which are emerging at present are going exactly into this direction.
This should not be misunderstood. I do not advocate a suppression of any religion on the European continent. But it's just a difference whether one encroaches upon the secular constitution, and this religion or another is principally anchored therein, because such a thing would have sociostructural consequences, and would certainly not be useful for the emancipation and progress of this society.
Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, that means the right of every citizen to exercise the religion of his choice or origin. That's right so, and should not be changed. Religion, of whatever kind, is a private matter and should remain so. The practice of a religion is a private matter of each individual citizen, the state itself is neutral with respect to this, and religion has no influence on governmental structures, of whatever kind they may be, and that should remain so.
If Mr. Özdemir believes that he necessarily must
enforce the suggestion to anchor the religion in the state constitution,
let him please go back nicely to his home country Turkey. Mr Erdogan is
certainly all ears for his wishes and himself a great representative of
such aspiration. In our country, however, in Germany such suggestion should
not have a chance and should not be given one. _______________________________ The present dispute shows once again retrospectively why, for example, Mao Zedong in 1975, has received Franz-Josef Strauss, the former Prime Minister of Bavaria, and not the Interior Minister Dietrich Genscher or even Willy Brandt at his time as Chancellor.
It is also an undignified behavior that the German capitalists are now hungry for young well-educated Syrians. This is too unworthy, it has to disappear, this has absolutely no raison d'être.
In one of the newly established initial reception centers at Berlin-Spandau Mrs Merkel said, all Syrian refugees (if one ever knew that so precisely, because so far they are indeed not registered anywhere, and meanwhile there is allegedly a brisk trade with Syrian passports), if they are well trained, they should get registered as soon as possible at the employment office, installed next door . They should get a job immediately. One can hardly behave more provocative towards the unemployed people from the indigenous population which can only say to themselves, "One would have to be a Syrian".
The US capitalists are keen to keep clear their forces for the coming confrontation, without a European preliminary skirmishing.
Where the contradiction between capital and labor is manifesting most succinctly at present? Surely between the US and the Asian countries, especially China, with its millions of working population, who daily work out the extra profits a million times, which constitute the basis for the speculation, either for the interests of their own national governments or for the interests of the international capitalists. This contradiction primarily it is what is increasingly developing and comes to an aggravation and in the future this will have pathbreaking influence on the development.
This is certainly seen by international capitalist strategists, and for those a fragmentation of Europe, with internal religious conflicts such as Islam and its different directions, is quite welcome. Such would fit perfectly, as a diversion, for their international basic strategy. A rise of religious ambitions in the European state apparatuses, however, would encourage such conflicts, as well as under certain conditions those states would be degraded to appendages of their military strategy. This must be countered by all means. European countries would do well not to be divided on religious issues, but to continue to insist on their right to trade with all countries in the world. Only such a strategy also creates air and space for the laboring population in Europe to develop themselves and to help their own demands to make a breakthrough.
Also the following must be observed. At present, the international unification of the toiling masses, the working class around the world, is not ready to bear their combined force, but they are split up very strongly in the context of their respective nations, and in some ways they are also subject to these and forced to take account of their concerns. As long as that's the case, it is important, above all, to pay attention where the line is drawn, so to speak, between progress and reaction in the world, in order to make the corresponding decision on which side you are taking position, and should be positioned. To ask the question, who is taking advantage from a certain action, a certain advance, can be of great importance for one's own decision.
[Translation of the German original text]
|