Logo
Cover

Germany is superior and inviolable

I am fascinated by what media and preachers think, despite the intellect and formation of the rule of law. It is not uncommon for the Chaots to demand the same from others. But in Germany, a country that has already murdered 80 million people on the basis of such confusing worlds of thought of its own superiority and inviolability, I am no longer surprised in the end.

“Take the Causa Navalny: the man was poisoned in the middle of Siberia. It is absurd to imagine that Western intelligence services have gone there to poison a man who, in an authoritarian regime, represents his own Western values.”

Patrice Limumba? U.S. intelligence agencies are killing people in other countries. They do not even shy away from open executions: General Soleimani. Who actually defines Russia as an authoritarian regime? The same ones who committed a genocide on 1.5 million people in Iraq? The uranium munitions made sure that many people in Iraq will have lasting memories of the wars? I say it this way: I find Germany, which beats people in the Hambach Forest because they are fighting for the climate, forcibly removing tenants from their accommodation in Berlin, probably because they were the wrong tenants, directed justice and promotions for murderers like Colonel Klein is at least authoritarian.

Yes. I can say that. But Russia? I do not know whether Russia is authoritarian. It may be. My observations do not coincide with such a prefabricated racist image. Russia promotes peace, for example, in Nagorno-Karabakh, including in Syria, which Western mass murderers (Iraq) tell me is not doing anything here; what counts are the facts, which also fits with how the US performs in the world and murders people en masse, in other countries, just like that; in other words, those people who have always wanted to incite us to racism against Russia.

Keyword “Western values”? What are those? One who calls for the extinction of an ethnic group (Caucasian), calls it cockroaches, vermin, which must be eliminated?

“That is why I am very surprised by some political voices from Berlin who actually believe that such theories are possible. He is not the first critic of the regime to be poisoned or murdered.”

Agrees! Patrice Lumumba is not the first US opponent (one who has dared to claim rights for his fellow human beings, which has automatically made him an enemy of the United States, as well as Snowden or Assange), whom they (their intelligence services) have murdered in another country in a cruel and cold-blooded manner. What murder do you have clear evidence (keyword of constitutional principles) that the Putin regime (one who took in Snowden and is probably the only head of state capable of providing him protection) is supposed to have committed, that is, away from racist prejudices and insinuations? Oh, yes. The (ugly) super-German, who knows what’s going on. His arrogance and arrogance towards other peoples has practically been placed in his cradle, not only since Adolf H.

“Those who make strong theses must also have strong arguments. One assertion alone is not enough.”

Agrees. Do you notice what?? Apart from the fact that you contradict yourself here (or can you also prove the alleged murders of the “authoritarian regime” in your opinion with evidence, weaker in my words “arguments”?), I have not yet heard anyone say “it WAS Western intelligence services”. So far, I’ve only heard “just as well HAVE it to be Western intelligence services.” That’s a small difference. You as a scientist will understand what I mean, I hope. In short, they insinuate false accusations to others, even though only conjecture has been expressed. This is scientifically unclean. Their insinuations against Russia are the same.

“This is also the case with all other topics. Of course, one can always question critically, but absurd assumptions must also be quickly ticked off. You need good arguments when you turn against the mainstream.”

How? What? Where? Who contradicts the mainstream is a heretic? We’ve had it all before, not just once. Nor is it scientific. On the contrary. It is a prime example of how not to do it: stupide follow the majority opinion. Majority opinion replaces scientificity, which should not be closed to majority opinion, but must not be used as a guideline for its action. In short, it is not majority opinion, but facts that are decisive.

“The statement that the Earth is a sphere to juxtapose the model of the disk is the opposite of good reasoning. What kind of intellectual sacrifices do people have to make to believe such nonsense?”

Now it’s getting really abstruse … I translate it this way: “Exactly, all that matters is my racist attitude and prejudgment. It was Russia, man is clear, they still live on trees and are still very far behind anyway.” Have you ever been to Russia?

What else is on the subject of “Western values”: the problem is 500 years of colonial fascism, in which the Europeans (today “the West”) have always believed that their “values” would empower them to impose these others and perpetrate one or two genocides (e.g. when the Belgian king in then-Belgian Congo had half of the population, 10 million people literally slaughtered) have left their deep mark. The problem with “Western values” is twofold: the false colouring of one’s own image on the one hand and, on the other hand– 500 years of colonial fascism can easily no longer be erased from our culture – deeply imprinted and taken for granted racism. We are thus convinced of our worldview and consider ourselves constantly superior (to speak of “Western” values alone is racist) that we do not need any evidence and evidence for our positions, nor a differentiated, further perspective on things. Unscientific, but nationalistic.

The answer that Lesch provides is not, or just what I described in my last paragraph. A sad image of a “lay preacher”.