The ZEIT article my email referred to (also quoted):
The ZEIT article my email referred to (also quoted):
The article the title of this article refers to (Mass Transit Is a Colossal Government Failure) is published on the website of the Foundation for Economic Education. The report spoken of in the article takes its conlusions from data collected in the United States. So of course the ultimate conclusion of mass transit being a failure based on data from the United States can only be valid in the United States. BUT:
since this is Agenda 21/2030, Vision 2015 we’re confronted with, it means, that besides from country-specific differences, the system is basically the same. Mass transit is pushed by government via funding what in the mind of those who write the agenda is preferable (deemed sustainable as opposed) to all other possible solutions or personal preferences. That is why local governments rather take parking spaces away, senselessly in the eyes of the public, because since the agenda says that cars are unsustainable, local governments have to make car ownership, traffic and finding of parking possibilities more difficult than using a bike and mass transit solutions. Think also of the recent diesel driving bans. That approach is devious, especially when studies, which are published after the agenda-driven policies are implemented, report the success of the policies, although in reality the demand by the people would be far lower.
And that is really the crux of the case, why I predict that mass transit is already a failure here in Germany too. In order to connect everybody via mass transit, they have to install more stopping points and deploy more busses, trains, subway trains, etc. They have to supply more rental bikes. More car sharing. For the latter two, Smartphone technology is really helpful, and it looks like more people actually do prefer to take an Uber cab, which doesn’t invalidate my point, since Uber services are offered on a free market, free from tax-payer funding, and relatively free from government-distorted prices. In case of mass transit solutions though prices are relatively far from market reality, and everybody who uses mass transit knows that prices rise frequently, like every year, all the while the service quality doesn’t rise. How the hell do those in charge of mass transit plan to make mass transit more and more often available without raising prices? And how do they plan to also replace fossil fuel driven busses with electric busses or even hydrogen busses without raising the prices, when a) replacement costs are two or three times higher than before and b) there is no electric and/or hydrogen infrastructure at all?
Right, they will have to raise taxes. What will happen when they keep on raising taxes? The trend of impoverishing the people will be reinforced. It is the same story as with the trend of impoverishing the people via taxes on electricity for the sake of implementing “renewables.” Apparently people in the UK are struck the hardest with fuel poverty in the EU. Again, since this is Agenda 21/2030, Vision 2050, policies and their effects are all basically the same, worldwide. You should also take a look at green policies in California, to get a closer look at what it means to be a human in a world where environment protection and measures against climate change are more important than protecting the rights of the individual human being.
So there’s no hope? Well, another effect of those ill-fated green policies is the rise of the so-called populistic parties, in Germany the AfD. The Alternative für Deutschland opposes green politics and calls the Greens out on their environmental and climate change scam, which makes a lot of people very rich and much more people very poor. And now you know, why AfD politicians and their supporters are called “Nazis” in public; it’s because a lot of money is transfered from the pockets of the working class into the pockets of climate activists, climate NGOs, climate politicians.
Mass transit might very probably soon be a complete failure, since redistribution of wealth has never worked out. In the end the system always fails, hopefully this time the people are alert enough to resist soon enough, so that free people on free markets will be able again to build this nation, every nation, worldwide.
A few days ago Angela Merkel, rarely seen speaking in public, deigned to give an appearance on a “debate” with her “challenger” Martin Schulz. Merkel’s party CDU and Schulz’ party SPD are currently working together on the helm of the government.
There are, however, also some other parties who are not part of the coalition. State channel ZDF invited leading figures of the parties most likely to win seats in the upcoming election for a “debate”.
Oh, and some leaders of the governing parties were also invited. Merkel’s party is technically split into a Bavarian part (CSU) and rest-German part (CDU). In total the government parties had three “discussion” participants in the show. Defence Secretary Ursula v. d. Leyen (CDU), Justice Minister Heiko Maas (SPD) and Andreas Scheuer (CSU).
There were also two proxy party leaders (of “libertarian” party FDP and the Greens) and a woman from the socialist party DIE LINKE. At some point, CSU politician Andreas Scheuer called AfD regional leader Björn Höcke a ‘right-wing radical’. In German that is equivalent to a neo-Nazi.
Alice Weidel of AfD was left with no choice but to leave the show if she didn’t want to sanction the insult against a member of her party. The host said while she left, ‘this is a strange debate culture’.
She then weight in and claimed that Alice Weidel would stage her departure because she would know the turn of the discussion to the topic ‘social equality’ (German: soziale Gerechtigkeit). She opined Weidel had no desire to work on it anyway.
Only the producers of a talk show know what things are said at what time during the well-planned shows (complete with paid audience members). German viewers are not even left in the dark about the fact that the propaganda is entirely orchestrated. The next thing which was to be said was that the gap between rich and poor is too large. Alice Weidel did not play the fiddle the orchestra master handed her.
Nuremberg’s local AfD group received a written statement which urges them to clarify until Tuesday next week that they won’t allow their party leader Alexander Gauland to speak in their premises.
Christian Vogel, member of left-wing party SPD and Vice Mayor of Nuremberg, confirms the attempted extortion to German news agency dpa.
The retraction of rental agreements is possible, so Vogel, if ‘Nuremberg as a city of peace and human rights would otherwise be damaged’. Nuremberg is rather known for the Nuremberg Rallies and the Nuremberg Laws, but leftists try to rewrite history wherever they can.
The specific reason why Gauland threatens the ‘peace and human rights’ of Nuremberg is that he said the “integration secretary”, which is apparently a job these days, could be disposed of in Anatolia.
Alexander Gauland complains about the double standard because Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel is also on record for saying that his boss Angela Merkel could be disposed of.
Despite the fact that print media is dwindling rapidly and all news services have internet blogs, large corporations and the German state media pretend that they are the arbiters of truth, utterly different from internet sites like The Daily Wire, Breitbart or The Intercept.
Bertelsmann, the biggest publishing corporation in the world, which is largely run by Angela Merkel’s close friend Liz Mohn, has now broadcast a hit piece against all things internet.
The video starts at a Pegida march. The journalists complain that journalists are not liked and ask people for their opinions.
One unidentified man says that the media is aligned with the powerful, the next one says that we are lied to and vital information is withheld from the public like ‘in darkest GDR times’. GDR is short for German Democratic Republic, which was the name of the socialist dictatorship in Eastern Germany.
Where do people get information from if they distrust the media? One gentleman says he gets news every Monday at the protest marches. One man mentions Breitbart and JouWatch.
JouWatch or Journalistenwatch is a news site founded by author Thomas Böhm. Böhm used to work for various mainstream publications such as taz, Tagesspiegel, Stern, Vogue, tip and Zitty. I quote JouWatch regularly on my blog and regard them as a serious source of information.
According to Bertelsmann’s RTL the topics are already problematic: crimes committed by immigrants, dangers of civil war and the looming of Islamisation.
The Bertelsmann report complains that ‘politicians are defamed’, ‘Merkel is seen as the primary enemy of the state’ and it presents some Russian site that I have never seen in my life before that says Martin Schulz’ father was a concentration camp guard. ‘None of it is true’, says the voice from the off. This ‘it’ stretches at least to ‘Merkel is an enemy’. It is even likely to suggest that everything on the internet is untrue.
They then close in on website ‘unzensuriert.at’, which has 600,000 monthly viewers from Germany and 1.5 million viewers in total. The numbers are wrong. This is the statistics. In TOTAL it only has 200,000 visitors across countries. Few people know the site.
Before the reporter goes undercover to bust this tiny little news blog, they characterize it. The articles ‘try to stir outrage’, which is something the mainstream media apparently can’t be found guilty of.
The site has a category called ‘daily an individual case greets you’ which deals with police reports on crimes committed by immigrants. The Bertelsmann lady says ‘purported crimes committed by immigrants’.
We see her go to a job interview. The drama music is on, the building is called a “student fraternity building” with ‘darkish, cold rooms’; the ‘stucco comes off the wall’.
Editor of the news site is Alexander Höferl, who is also communication director of conservative party FPÖ. He tells the undercover lady that his site aligns with Austria’s FPÖ and Germany’s AfD. In other words, it is a conservative news site.
Bertelsmann runs a mini study on the reporting over the previous fortnight. The result is that:
They obviously hand-picked a website that is conservative, but basically very obsessed with one issue. That’s probably the reason why it hardly grabbed my attention and has only 600,000 viewers in Germany.
To the tune of thriller music the lady’s voice says the site ‘creates animus against migrants and competing political parties’. Bear in mind that “serious” media creates animus against Russians, Americans, the Polish, the French, Hungarians, Israel and conservatives.
‘The truth seems to be secondary’, says the lady. As an example she presents a situation where she is confronted with an article that says that apartments in Hamburg are confiscated to accommodate refugees. The article is wrong. There is a law that allows empty flats to be turned over to accommodate refugees, but it was not used at the time.
It is indeed a sloppy mistake. The lady asserts, ‘in professional media there is a duty to only publish what one has checked’. We all see far too many mistakes on your side, girl! The mistake is, however, immaterial because she guns for more and throws her net to catch all the news sources and unzensuriert’s way of fact checking. Alexander Höferl finds an article published on David Berger’s Philosophia Perennis which he believes confirms the information in question.
Dr. David Berger is a well-known author and publisher, who sourced his article with information from the Gatestone Institute. Gatestone sourced to mainstream media outlets, predominantly to newspaper Berliner Zeitung. Both Berger and Gatestone were transparent about their sources.
Finally the lady complains that the news site is aligned with right-wing parties and that it is not ‘objective’. The site does not claim to be objective. Bertelsmann, mainly headed by Angela Merkel’s close friend Liz Mohn, claims to be objective.
Last Saturday at 23:24 p.m. German radio station Dasding/SWR, a proxy of state agency ARD, aired a song which was indexed as ‘a threat to the youth’ by the Federal Agency for the Control of Youth-Threatening Media (German: Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien BPjM).
Both the BPjM and Jürgen Braun claim that it ‘threats violence’. The lyrics of the song ‘Flora remains’ (German: Flora bleibt’) call for the preservation of the notorious socialist hotspot ‘Red Flora’ (German: Rote Flora) in the city of Hamburg. The Red Flora is part of a former theater which is now illegally occupied by autonomous squatters.
The lines that are apparently not “covered by free speech” are ‘you’ll get nothing out of Flora but kicks to your face’, ‘a little rebellion, a little damage’ and ‘woman, man, unite against Germany’!
The song is no direct threat to any individual and would be protected under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The law to protect ‘the youth’ is misused against an airing of a song shortly before midnight.
Polls strongly suggest that Jürgen Braun (AfD) will be a member of parliament after the general election.
Thomas Fischer, former head of Germany’s Supreme Court, takes Alexander Gauland, leader of conservative party AfD, to court for alleged incitement of hatred. The former judge opines that Gauland, who is a doctor of legal studies, must have know that his speech is illegal. Gauland, however, claims that the comments in questions were just made off the cuff.
But what are the horrendous words that should have never been uttered? Gauland said another politician, Mrs Aydan Özoguz of left-wing party SPD, should be disposed of in Anatolia. Özoguz is of Turkish descend.
Mrs Özoguz holds the office of an ‘Integration Minister’. You are probably scratching your head now. Yes, an Integration Minister is disposable and it is outright obscene that such an office had been created, but she surely had the right friends.
The hate speech offense in question is punishable by between three months and five years in prison. Until recently it was more or less a dead paragraph. It includes the wanton prerequisites that the offense must ‘trouble the public’ to be an offense and it must be directed at some groups or individuals who are members of such groups.
For its wantoness the very law can hardly be aligned with the idea of the rule of law. In the past these prerequisites were often used to ditch court cases, but in recent years actual verdicts on the basis of §130 StGB are handed down to alleged “perpetrators” more and more often.