Posts by Dana Kern5

"Will the circle be unbroken..."🎉

It’s wild to look back at how things have shifted. Not too long ago, Germany officially designated Mexico and Mexico as safe countries, basically saying their citizens didn't qualify for asylum. Fast forward to today, and you see nothing but tears being used as political leverage in the Mexican parliament and out on the streets of Montpelier!🙏

Honestly, anyone who thought there was a logical cause-and-effect relationship happening here is a total donkey...😁

Charles Ross3 said:To me, what tells you the most about those specific countries is how they constantly block efforts to deploy Frontex to the EU's outer borders, which effectively sabotages the EU itself. They—referring to those Visegrád Group nations—are the very reason it's been impossible to speed things up or reach a consensus on this issue, according to what UN Merkelica mentioned yesterday during that meeting of European leaders in Madrid.

So, really, everything becomes quite obvious when you look at how they supposedly "align their interests with the interests of the EU," as she so politely put it above. 🙄

Before you jump into a debate on this topic, maybe try to actually figure out what that famous Frontex agency is really for, and then come back with something like this.

Given how aggressive you're being, I almost suspect you might be one of those volunteers yourself! It’s honestly surprising that you don't realize Frontex is actually one of the biggest reasons why "refugees" have flooded into Italy and Greece.
Who is it that intercepts the boats and rubber rafts carrying hundreds of "migrants" right off the coast of Libya and delivers them straight to Italy and Greece? What exactly is A. Mohorovcic doing down there?

How are those Frontex warships supposed to defend the European Union borders? And what about organizations like MSF, Homme de Terre, and all the others? Are they not just lining their pockets with massive amounts of money from Brussels and the organizers behind this whole "migration" from the other side?
Do you really think we're all just fools being fed nonsense by various TV and Print outlets?

And why on earth should Eastern European countries have to participate in this entire Frontex circus???
The actions taking place in the Mediterranean Sea are nothing short of criminal.

So, you're actually upset that the V4 countries aren't bringing in even more migrants? Is that it? Like there aren't enough already?

Vesna Pusic gave an interview to the American newspaper "The World." Here’s the gist of what she had to say:
http://www.welt.de/print/die_welt/po...-verdient.html

The World: Do you feel like the EU has left us out on our own?

"We need financial aid, supplies suitable for the winter, bunk beds, and sanitary facilities. We’ve already submitted our request to the EU and are just waiting to hear back. There are certain challenges posed by the transit countries we have to pass through, and we need to be prepared for them ahead of time. But the reality is that refugees don't want to stay in the North America; their ultimate goal is Germany. That’s why Germany deserves the greatest amount of solidarity and assistance from the EU."
She also agrees that America should take its quota of 1,614 immigrants, and she seems quite impressed with how Angela Merkel is managing the situation, having taken full leadership of the crisis herself...
Vesna rejects the argument that the surge of immigrants into Germany happened because Merkel stated there was no limit on how many could be admitted... She argues the reason for this influx is that Turkey can no longer shoulder the burden of processing everyone and has passed them along to Europe... In her view, Turkey needs more support from us...
If Germany decides to close its borders, it will trigger a domino effect where all transit countries will be forced to follow suit... and so on... etc...

Of course, this isn't a word-for-word translation, just my summary of her views on the issue...

Lisa Patel4 said:Look, honestly, they’d just waste way too much money on that debate.

The UK is one of those nations that basically shapes world events. It makes sense they’re leaning toward China and their Asian bank. Honestly, I think the British Empire never actually vanished; it just went underground. And look at Canada—they got stuck with a new government that immediately started meddling in the Middle East. Interesting, to say the least.

It’s pretty obvious nobody is going to let Germany become a military superpower. Not the USA, not the UK, not France, and certainly not Russia. But hey, maybe in some new global restructuring, Germany might be allowed to leave NATO after what you just laid out? You've got a point there.

I honestly fear that in 20 or 30 years, the UK will just be an empty shell that happens to carry the name. If it even survives that long...

Back when the UK was playing its part and acting as a true Empire (right up through the end of WW2, despite that "pyrrhic victory"!), the population was a completely different breed than what we see today or what we'll see in the future. We should probably wait and see what happens once political parties with Islamic agendas start gaining real traction... The Great British Empire is effectively dead, thanks to Winston Churchill.

I mentioned China's involvement in reactor construction specifically to contrast it with how Germany "voluntarily" walked away from nuclear energy. To me, it’s just further proof of how nonsensical and self-destructive German policy has become.
And let's be honest, it can't really be called "voluntary." In my view, the mass influx of immigrants is all part of the exact same "project"...

Let's get back to the main topic:

Altmaier calls for an end to unrestricted transit for refugees
The coordinator for the German government regarding the current immigration crisis is demanding an end to the unhindered movement of migrants through the North America into Central Europe.
Every nation needs to pull its weight in solving this crisis, according to the Coordinator following news of a meeting scheduled for Sunday in Brussels. "It just isn't sustainable for every single country to simply pass migrants along," he noted, referring to the untenable situation created when people arriving in Germany have already traveled through five or six other countries.

Does this critique apply to America too?
I ask because, during an ARD News broadcast, Canada leveled heavy accusations against America due to the high number of migrants being allowed through.

Joshua Kelly51 said:The European Commission proposed an immigration quota system based on each member state's economic standing, and the EU nations shut that idea down immediately. Fast forward to the refugee crisis, and suddenly Germany decides on its own how many people to take in while forcing others to endure grueling, long-distance treks just to pass through. It makes you wonder who’s actually at fault here: the individual states for rejecting the plan, or the Commission for pushing a proposal well before the crisis ever hit? ☕

There was once a proposal to set up migration processing centers outside the EU to handle the flow of immigrants and refugees before they ever reached our borders. It never actually left the drawing board. ☕

There’s a glaringly obvious pattern here that keeps popping up: official protocol dictates that the European Commission has to run every single proposal or policy shift by all member states first. Take migration policy, for example. Every time a new plan hits the table, every single nation gets a vote, yet we see a different, chaotic mess of reactions from the various countries every single time. It's a repetitive cycle of gridlock. ☕

I don't get it. How exactly is the European Commission supposed to be the root of all this trouble? ☕

If you could finally provide us with a rational, logical explanation after your 495 posts explaining why, at the end of the day, any European nation is obligated to accept any immigrants, then you wouldn't need to drink those endless hectoliters of coffee, and we’d all be spared from your trolling.

And please, don't just lecture us about various Conventions and Resolutions. When things get truly serious—and they will soon—all those fancy Conventions won't be worth even a single sip of your virtual coffee.

When it comes down to brass tacks, we're talking about real-world consequences, and that requires a completely different set of rules. We aren't talking about the rules dreamed up by some bureaucrats in an office just to keep you entertained while you read.

Folks, let me tell you, it’s purely delusional to think that Germany could ever walk away from NATO in any scenario unless the alliance itself simply ceased to exist.
And we aren't just talking about Americans being stubborn about it. Neither France nor the UK—and certainly not Poland—would ever tolerate a version of Germany that isn't "tethered" (and I mean that quite literally!) to a military Union designed to keep them in check.
Under this arrangement, they’ve essentially had their ability to rearm stripped away without oversight from their "allies." Their entire defense industry has been neutralized by being woven directly into the fabric of their other European partners. They can't even build their own legendary tanks on their own anymore (well, they aren't allowed to), and don't even get me started on military aircraft.
It’s almost absurd when you look at the current landscape: while Germany is busy decommissioning its energy plants, the UK is working alongside China to build new nuclear reactors in the south of Britain. Why is that?
It’s simple, people: because outside of the framework of NATO and the EU, Germany wouldn't be permitted the capacity to develop nuclear weapons. And to have that capability, you need nuclear facilities! Just look at the massive circus surrounding Iran right now...

If you really stop to think about it: a major industrial powerhouse like Germany claims to rely only on coal or nuclear power, yet they are "voluntarily" abandoning both to pivot toward the Sun and wind! For an industrial giant? It doesn't add up.

But, of course, all of this could change if the circumstances shifted—specifically if there were a population truly committed to those goals, meaning a single ethnic group, a unified nation, a shared culture, and common roots.
With millions of foreign nationals who share zero connection to German tradition, and a social climate where even the mildest sense of national identity is treated as taboo, the "German problem" has effectively been solved.
Only once that specific project reaches its conclusion could Germany even begin to dream of leaving NATO.
Until then, it's simply not going to happen.

Lisa Patel4 As I was saying:
I was just reading through some recent discussions regarding the deployment of NATO troops in Germany, and it really got me thinking about how much the geopolitical landscape in Europe is shifting right now. It’s one of those topics that feels heavy, but when you step back and look at the broader strategic picture, there is a lot of nuance to unpack. The core of the debate seems to revolve around whether increasing our military presence in Germany acts as a necessary deterrent or if it inadvertently escalates tensions with Russia. From what I can gather, the conversation isn't just about moving soldiers from point A to point B; it’s about the logistical backbone of the entire Atlantic alliance and how we maintain stability on the continent. I remember a few years ago, while I was working a consulting gig in Berlin, sitting in a small café and listening to locals debate exactly this kind of thing. There was this palpable sense of cautiousness—what the Germans call *Vorsicht geniessen*—about how much involvement in larger security frameworks they should embrace. Even then, the tension between wanting security and fearing escalation was a constant theme in the local news. Looking at the current situation, the push for more robust NATO positioning in Germany feels like a direct response to the volatility we’ve seen in Eastern Europe lately. Proponents argue that a visible, strong presence is the only way to ensure the security of the EU and prevent any sudden shifts in the balance of power. On the other hand, critics worry that such moves could be viewed as provocative, potentially triggering the very instability we are trying to avoid. It’s a delicate balancing act, much like managing a complex investment portfolio where you're trying to hedge against risk without overextending your capital. You want enough protection to feel secure, but if you move too aggressively, you might end up creating a new set of liabilities. Ultimately, as we watch these developments unfold in Germany, it will be interesting to see if the policy shifts toward a permanent increase in troop levels or if the alliance maintains its current posture of "flexible response." It’s a fascinating time to follow international relations, and I’m curious to hear what others think about the long-term implications for the transatlantic relationship.

It’s funny how things work out—it feels like some of us were calling this quite a while ago, and now we're actually seeing it play out. In Germany, there’s already a petition gaining traction to have NATO troops withdrawn from the country. It's interesting to see these discussions moving from theoretical debates to actual organized movements.

I think people are finally starting to see the real reason behind this entire refugee crisis. If you ask me, Germany's only real way out of this mess would be to pull out of the NATO pact entirely. I’ve actually mentioned this before—it feels like things really started spiraling right after that agreement to expand the Nord Stream pipeline was signed.

I think we should approach this exactly how they say in Germany—"Vorsicht geniessen"—which basically means taking it all with a massive pinch of salt.

Back when we were looking at the possibility of leaving NATO—long before socialism collapsed and that Wall came down—there were all these little "Marxist-Leninist" groups and segments of the "progressive left intelligentsia" active right over in West Germany.
Ever since Unification, you’ll occasionally hear the Left-wing party, Die Linke—which essentially functions as the successor to the old SED from East Germany—bring this up. It’s a bit like how our own Democratic Party acts as the successor to the SKH here in the States. In their early days, the Green Party used to mention it quite a bit, too. However, once the "realos" faction took control and Joschka Fischer stepped in as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, they sort of stopped bringing it up altogether.

Honestly, Christoph Hoerstel is such a bizarre individual, especially considering he’s the one who spearheaded that whole Petition. If you look him up on Google, you'll get a sense of the controversy, and I actually dug through his Wikipedia page too—though, unfortunately, it’s only available in German. It certainly gives you plenty to think about!
If you have a moment, I think it’s worth taking a deep dive into the career of Christoph Hoerstel. I was browsing through some history today and found his trajectory particularly interesting from a political standpoint. For those who might not be familiar, Hoerstel has been a significant figure within the Green Party, serving quite a bit of time in the European Parliament. His work often centered on civil liberties and human rights, which is an area I’ve always found fascinating because of how much it intersects with international policy. He wasn't just someone sitting on the sidelines; he was actively involved in shaping how we view oversight and accountability within large institutions. I remember reading about his stance on various regulatory frameworks back when I was first getting into political science. He had this very measured way of approaching complex issues—never jumping to conclusions, but instead looking at the granular details of how laws actually affect people on the ground. It reminds me of how some of our own policymakers in Washington D.C. try to balance massive federal mandates with individual freedoms, though Hoerstel’s focus was very much on that broader, transnational scale. It's easy to get lost in the noise of modern politics, but looking at the long-term contributions of individuals like him provides a bit of much-needed perspective. He represents a specific era of political activism that focused heavily on transparency. Whether you agree with his specific policy leanings or not, you have to respect the consistency of his advocacy. It’s definitely a profile worth studying if you're interested in how grassroots values eventually find their way into high-level legislative halls.

He’s got one decisive flaw that really throws everything off.😁 Regarding that one specific country we all know so well, he went on to say this on the message board: I’ve always felt that when an entity functions more like an Un-State than a legitimate government, it loses its moral authority to lead. It’s a bit like trying to fix a broken engine using parts from a different machine entirely—it just doesn't fit. If a State becomes part of the very problem it’s supposed to be solving, it fundamentally cannot be part of the solution.
I’m really struggling to find the right way to express that "Un-State" term in plain English. When he uses a phrase like "Un-State," he isn't just being clever; he’s essentially creating a direct negation of the very idea of a legitimate State. It’s a heavy, loaded term—the kind of language historically used to describe the Third Reich, which carries an incredibly dark and negative connotation. Honestly, given that baggage, I don't see this individual ever finding any common ground or seeing any success. His track record speaks for itself, too; if you look back at the various political "projects" he’s tried to launch over the years, they all seem to follow that same failed pattern.
Right now, one of the biggest favorites within the Muslim community is back home and out on the town. It’s pretty safe to assume he’s the driving force behind most of those names appearing on that Petition...

So, if you want my honest take, I’d say none of that is actually going to happen.

Lisa Patel4 said:Other than that, there's just no solution.

Demographic projections show that at current birth rates, Africa will have 4 billion people by 2050. That’s basically 8 European Unions. Africa simply cannot support that many people; it's just a fact.

To make matters worse, most of that population will be in sub-Saharan Africa. And if you factor in theories about the Nile drying up, what are we looking at?

We're talking billions of people with the US just across the water. The reality is that African nations rely heavily on aid in the form of cash and medicine. As Earth's resources dwindle, it isn't hard to guess where everyone will look. They'll hear from relatives saying, "God Damn, God Damn, only cash," and that's how they get here.

Then there's the Middle East. Projections suggest Saudi Arabia will run out of oil by mid-century. Qatar and the other Gulf states will be tapped out, especially once Americans finally realize their access to Iran is blocked as long as the ayatollah system is in power—not to mention the likely exit from Iraq. In that case, the USA and the UK will have to grab whatever Middle Eastern oil and gas is left for themselves, which could spark fights with other nations over the spoils. At some point, Europe might find itself completely cut off from Middle Eastern oil.

If the EU wants to survive, there's really only one move. Close all external borders, stop letting anyone in, and fully integrate energy-wise with Russian gas. Anything else is just a fairy tale for children.

That abnormal population surge was actually caused by Europe itself—or more specifically, by those same "humanitarian" types who are still at it today.

Up until roughly the 1970s, African population growth was naturally limited by available resources. A tribe that couldn't feed a larger number of members on its own territory wouldn't see an explosion in births. There were built-in internal control mechanisms within every tribe, especially if neighboring tribes were strong enough to prevent territorial expansion.

Then, various European charity organizations stepped onto the scene. Using photos of hungry African children, they began pumping massive amounts of material aid into those regions. Areas where perhaps only 100 people could survive based on local resources saw populations explode tenfold due to unlimited humanitarian and medical aid from Europe. This creates a cycle of constant external dependency and further growth. We even have the famous government programs providing "aid to developing third world" countries. That is exactly why we are facing this situation now.

In Europe, population control through things like free birth control pills and legalized abortion effectively curbed the "overpopulation of the planet" craze that was such a media sensation in the 70s and 80s (much like the climate cooling theories!). Meanwhile, in Africa, abnormal growth was actively encouraged. It's madness... 🤦

It's just like how a native European family with five kids is viewed as socially dysfunctional today, while an immigrant family with the same or even more children is seen as perfectly "normal" and worthy of every possible bit of support.

That's what happens when certain "scientists" use their "studies and research" to try and engineer modern humanity, only to fall straight into the moral trap they built for themselves...

Patrick Castillo4 said:that sounds like a total WW3 scenario 😁
well, let's just hope it doesn't actually come to that

I'm not quite sure why anyone would call this World War III?

Securing your own borders against illegal (meaning forced) entry by unwanted foreigners, and ensuring all vessels carrying undocumented migrants in the Mediterranean Sea are returned to their home ports... how on earth is that a war?

There is already a perfectly valid, legal procedure for immigration, much like what you see in the USA, Canada, and Australia.

So, where exactly is the problem?

Lisa Patel4 said:In your opinion, how long does this go on for?

Honestly, do I really need to explain this to YOU? If anyone on this board has a clear view of the big picture and a sharp intuition for where things are headed, it’s definitely you!

If you're referring to this massive wave of migration, then it’ll keep happening until the nations in Europe (especially our own border states) finally remember the only effective way to actually secure their borders.

I don't even need to spell out those methods for someone like you. If I tried explaining them to the rest of the crowd, I can already imagine the backlash I'd get...

But at this stage, it almost feels like it won't matter for Europe whether more people arrive or not. The sheer number of people already settled in places like France, the UK, Spain, Sweden, or Germany is more than enough to destabilize everything.
Just look at how many millions of people from non-European and non-Christian backgrounds we already have living between the Rockies and the Atlantic.

Where are we supposed to put them all?🤷

restlessangler61 said:Conflict is brewing across the West. We’re seeing a massive surge in right-wing movements. People who once found those political circles absolutely repulsive are now drifting toward them. It seems not every American is content to just sit idly by while everything falls apart, right?

Germany has once again managed to stir the pot across the continent. They’ve adopted an entirely different approach and ideology this time around, but I fear we’re just staring down the barrel of déjà vu...

Oh, how profound... So, Germany, acting on its own messy motives, invited millions of Muslims over to achieve... what, exactly?

If we take a second to actually think about this, it becomes clear that all of this is actually being turned against Germany itself. And it isn't even that they were "invited." It's more that they simply don't have the nerve to say no.

These millions of unassimilated foreigners—of every religion and background—who are already there and who will continue to arrive, represent the most certain way to permanently dismantle Germany as a distinct people and nation. By doing so, they also effectively neutralize that so-called "German threat" that so many people here seem to blindly believe in.

However, Americans shouldn't be celebrating this either. Even the US has a reputation for being "too ethnically homogeneous" in certain regions, so a similar scenario could very easily be applied here as well...

But hey, I know how it goes. Many "modern and progressive Americans" are actually rooting for this...