Thursday, October 14, 2010

Their grandparents wanted to rule the world!

"The acrid immigration debate sparked this summer by former Bundesbank board member Thilo Sarrazin has apparently had an effect on the German public. A poll released on Wednesday showed that one-tenth want a “Fuhrer,” while one-quarter admitted to strong xenophobic attitudes – up from one-fifth in 2008"

It surprises me, ... does it surprise you? ... that a significant percentage of German people have responded to a poll supporting the rise of a "Fuhrer" to lead the nation. This is obviously similar to the feelings of 1930's Germany, which encouraged the elevation of Adolph Hitler to the role of Chancellor, and later "Fuhrer", of the country.

The poll numbers are probably in response to the rising percentage of Islamic German Citizens, the political influence of which natural born Germans are increasingly opposed.

If this catches you unprepared to accept, especially when compared to the 1937-1945 Nazification of the country (which has been so determinedly renounced by Germans during the past 65 years), then perhaps it would be illuminating to consider the current attitudes of endemic Germans regarding the possession of firearms:

In the light of "shooting rampage[s] with ... legally owned sporting weapon[s]", German citizens are asking each other WHY they [the average German citizen] should be 'allowed' to possess firearms:

"The Badische Zeitung, based in Freiburg some 80-kilometres from Larrach, expressed the region’s sense of shock and helplessness in the face of such incidents.

“Along with the speculation that comes after the fact there's another question which we can’t spare the countless weapons lovers living in peace,” the paper said. [Emphasis added by the editor: is it surprising that "weapons lovers" might "live in peace"? Perhaps they know something that undefended people do not know.] “When there is a firearm at hand, is there not a threat that difficult psychological conflicts will escalate faster than without them? To this day the weapons lobby still hasn’t been able to convince us that the two have nothing to do with the other.”

Baden-Wirttemburg's capital daily, the Stuttgarter Zeitung, warned against knee-jerk weapons law reforms, but said Sunday’s shocking events renewed questions about whether current regulations are adequate.

“Once again a weapon that should have been used for recreational sport shooting was used to kill, and this time the perpetrator was a markswoman herself,” the paper said. “She would not have been able to commit the crime if she had faced tighter weapon regulations.”

While stronger laws for such weapons may not prevent every crime, they would hinder at least a few, the paper said."

“After the most recent crimes we must be allowed to weigh the freedom of sports shooters against other people’s right to life. In this society people’s freedom is encroached for petty reasons. Is it really unreasonable then if marksmen only have a right to reach for their weapons when they are practising the sport? Stricter weapons law won’t make disturbed people better. But in individual cases it could soften the consequences of their behaviour.”

Hannover daily the Neue Presse agreed with this view, lamenting: “Why on earth do sport shooters bring their weapons and pistols into their homes at all? There is no plausible reason.”

These guns are meant only for use within sporting clubs, where they should be stored with the appropriate security precautions, the paper said.

This is an excellent question, and German newspapers are performing a valuable service by asking the question ... although the context in which the question is raised may seem, to the average American reader, to be slightly skewed to a conclusion which is pre-ordained by the publisher.

This newspaper seems to accept the precept that private ownership of firearms is "A Bad Idea", even though a half-hearted attempt has been made to present the question in a 'neutral' context.

Why SHOULD German citizens be permitted to own firearms? After all, one article supports the concept of a "Nanny State", and the other (under the guise of presenting the 'general viewpoint of the average German Citizen') presupposes that there is no justifiable reason for private ownership of firearms.

The Jews know why.

In the period 1939-1943, under increasing persecution by the Nazis, the Jewish population of the Warsaw Ghetto learned that the only viable opposition was "armed resistance". Only by forcibly opposing German oppression were they able, for a short time, to prevent the Germans from shipping them to concentration camps. While they were in the Ghetto, the Jews discovered that the sole relief from persecution was to resist, by force of arms, German oppression and persecution.

It didn't last; the Jews were eventually overwhelmed by the diversion of a German artillery division for a series of months. But during that period, they succeeded in weakening, even so slightly, the German military power although it caused the Jewish population to suffer grievously.

Yes, the Jews know why it is tantamount to tyranny for a civilian population to be denied the God Given Right to self-defense. It isn't a matter of permitting citizens to engage in sporting competition; it isn't because a government "allows" its citizens to own firearms; it isn't even because a government 'recognizes' their right to defend their home against individual predators.

God gives them the right to defend themselves against a predatory government. Nothing less is implied, nor significant in comparison to the right to defend the freedom of the people.

If the Germany of today does not recognize, or accept, that Right, then the citizens of Germany are only fooling themselves when they think that a paltry few individuals who die because a German person goes 'mad' and shoots his or her neighbors justifies abrogation of that right.

Madness on the individual level is surely to be deprecated; madness against an entire segment of the population is ... Government.

When we allow "The State" to determine our fates, we give out fate unto the hands of people who are "popular". Have we not yet learned that popularity does not equate to wisdom?

Germany should have been the first group of people to recognize the value of (as it is known in America) the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Apparently, they have already forgotten the lesson.

The Jews have not.

Let us all learn from the Jews.

No comments: