The “good guys”, the “bad guys” and the war

The “good guys”, the “bad guys” and the war

A brief review of the EU parliamentary elections

by Karl Müller

EU Europe is indeed deeply divided. At least if one uses the judgements of the German-speaking mainstream media and mainstream politicians as a basis. These divide the political forces in EU-Europe into “good” and “bad”. The “good” are those who want to give even more political power to the institutions of the EU that have distanced themselves from democracy, while the “bad” are those who don’t want to.

According to this classification, the “good guys” won the EU Parliament elections in Germany. The good guys now are mainly the Greens. Even if they still lag behind the CDU/CSU in percentage terms. The CDU/CSU lost 6 out of 29 seats. 20.5% of the voters voted for the Green party. Actually, this number is not so high. But the first reactions on election night were as if all “good” parties had to adopt the Green agenda, above all climate protection (or what the Green party imagine it to be), as quickly as possible in order to be successful again (i.e. to achieve 20% of the votes?). In addition, the younger the voters, the higher the proportion of Green voters: among the 18-24-year olds, the figure was up to 34%1 which shows, that the Greens got the most votes from this age group. … And all of them are vying for the “youth”.
But why did so many young people choose the Greens? This needs to be investigated. To criticise the youth or to look down on them does not lead to understanding. Surely the media productions of the past months (the crazy hype about “Fridays for Future” etc.) and the YouTube video of Rezo (played up by the media) shortly before the election date are partially to blame.
But don’t forget: Only 17% of the Germans surveyed think that the Greens have the best answers to the questions of the future. The leader who is named more than twice as often as all parties: no party – 37% of the interviewees have indicated this. One forgets too quickly: although voter turnout has increased significantly, almost 40% of voters still did not vote at all.
To come back to the topic of “climate protection”: The Greens are being used as a political platform to implement the agenda of certain interest groups (who do the Greens serve? – see Jutta Ditfurth: “War, atom, poverty. What they say, what they do: The Greens”, Berlin 2011; especially the chapter “In steel thunderstorms”, page 135ff.). Don’t these groups need the Greens as a strong moral platform to achieve their goals? Did we not have the same situation with Fischer’s “Never again Auschwitz” before the Yugoslavian war, which was contrary to international law? Fischer and the German Greens provided the moral justification for the murder of a few thousand people and the destruction of a country. Since 1999 one US NATO war after the next followed … against the “bad guys” in the world … with millions of victims … and since 1999 repeatedly with German participation.
Apropos Greens: Only 8% of the interviewed Germans trust the Greens to represent German interests in the EU.
In today’s EU Europe, the “bad guys” in Hungary, Poland, Italy, France (and the UK) now have won the elections with the relative (or even absolute) highest number of votes. 52.3 % in Hungary, 45.6 % in Poland, 34.3 % in Italy, 23.3 % in France (and 31.7 % in the UK). Even in Germany there are federal states in which the “bad guys” achieved the most votes in relative terms: in Saxony with 25.3% and in Brandenburg with 19.9% …
If things weren’t so serious, the events would fit well into a ironic commentary. But one must not underestimate the consequences of this Manichaean division into good and evil. This is the spirit of war that was let out of the bottle: war within and war against the supposed enemies (“evil”) in other countries. This spirit of war is directed not least against Russia (and against the political forces in EU-Europe that seek “normal” relations with Russia), and the result will also be hardened fronts throughout Europe. Cui bono?
The framework of international relations is binding international law. Those who are no longer prepared to accept that varying peoples and states want to go in different directions and can also approve very differing policies, and those who no longer want to see that politics does good to respect election results and to treat each voter and all elected equally, have not learnt the lessons of history.
The globalist imperialism still believes to be able to spread in the world and to defeat it according to its taste. The EU should be its vassal. That is the challenge facing Europe and its citizens today.    •

All figures refer to the survey results of infratest-dimap of 26 May which can be viewed at www.tagesschau.de from 27 May.

[Translate to en:] Wie die politische Kultur in Deutschland leidet

[] km. Die Meinungsäusserungsfreiheit, also das Recht, seine Meinung öffentlich in Wort, Schrift und Bild zu äussern, ist ein Wesensbestandteil einer freiheitlichen und demokratischen politischen Kultur und auch im deutschen Grundgesetz garantiert. Aber der Geist des Krieges zerstört dieses Grund- und Menschenrecht.
Ein namhaftes und etabliertes deutsches Meinungsforschungsinstitut, das Institut für Demoskopie in Allensbach, hat mit seinem Monatsbericht für den Mai 2019 (veröffentlicht in der «Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung» vom 23. Mai) deutlich gemacht, dass dieses Grundrecht auch in Deutschland ausgehöhlt wird. Oder wie ist es sonst zu bewerten, wenn zwei Drittel der Befragten davon überzeugt sind, man müsse heute «sehr aufpassen, zu welchen Themen man sich wie äussert»? Denn es gebe viele ungeschriebene Gesetze, welche Meinungen akzeptabel und zulässig sind.
«Vaterlandsliebe» und «Patriotismus» sind nur eines von verschiedenen Beispielen. 41 % der Befragten sagen, sich zum Patriotismus zu bekennen sei heute ein Tabugebiet. Vor 20 Jahren fanden dies nur 16 % der Befragten. Heute befürchten viele Befragte, als «rechts aussen» zu gelten, wenn sie sich zum Patriotismus bekennen. Ein Drittel der Befragten ist der Meinung, «dass sich ein Politiker hüten sollte, Nationalstolz zu bekunden, wenn er sich nicht harten Angriffen aussetzen will». Ein anderes Beispiel: 71 % der Befragten sagen, man dürfe sich heute zur Flüchtlingsthematik nur vorsichtig äussern. Der Monatsbericht aus Allensbach fügt – fast 4 Jahre nach dem Sommer 2015 – hinzu: «Geblieben ist der Eindruck, dass die Eliten die Sorgen der Bevölkerung nicht ausreichend ernst nehmen und sogar unter Verdacht stellen.»
In ihrem Freundeskreis haben die meisten Befragten keine Mühe, ihre Meinung offen zu sagen. Ganz anders sieht es in der Öffentlichkeit aus, also dem eigentlichen Ort der Meinungsäusserungsfreiheit. Hier sehen nur 18 % der Befragten eine vergleichbare Freiheit. Hauptgrund dafür ist die Sorge vor einer grob werdenden Auseinandersetzung.
Grundsätzlich heisst es im Monatsbericht aus Allensbach, viele hätten den Eindruck, «dass sich bei Meinungsäusserungen in der Öffentlichkeit die soziale Kontrolle verstärkt sowie individuelle Äusserungen und Verhaltensweisen zunehmend unter Beobachtung stehen»; dass «die Freiheitsräume im öffentlichen Raum kleiner werden» und dass es eine «Rigorosität» gibt, «mit der bestimmte Sprachregelungen eingefordert werden».
Am Schluss des Artikels heisst es: «Zurzeit ist in der politischen Debatte viel von Respekt die Rede […]. Viele Bürger vermissen in dem Sinne Respekt, dass sie mit ihren Sorgen und Positionen ernst genommen werden wollen, dass über wesentliche Entwicklungen offen diskutiert wird und sie von erzieherischem Furor verschont bleiben.»

Our website uses cookies so that we can continually improve the page and provide you with an optimized visitor experience. If you continue reading this website, you agree to the use of cookies. Further information regarding cookies can be found in the data protection note.

If you want to prevent the setting of cookies (for example, Google Analytics), you can set this up by using this browser add-on.​​​​​​​