6 ms·

This will be used to silence political dissent in the EU. The current rulers fear the change which could come about if they allow the political climate to shift

This will be used to silence political dissent in the EU. The current rulers fear the change which could come about if they allow the political climate to shift in the direction which it is ready to.

kranke155 2y ago
How silly. Orban and his fellows are the ones who engage in authoritarianism.
- aldsfh 2y ago
  There is currently an initiative to forbid a political party, the AfD in Germany. This is not supported by the CDU, but by others. While I do not like the AfD, forbidding political parties that serve as an outlet for people who do not support the uniparty and their essentially identical policies seems to be one of the most totalitarian measures in postwar Germany. The SPD should instead examine why they themselves are losing votes.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    Politics across the world has ossified and become terrified of change. So they stick their heads in the sand.
    - squigz 2y ago
      Why do you think that is?
      - throwaway48476 2y ago
        Globalization. If you're a rich person you spend most of your life in the company of other rich people across the world. If you're a politician you spend it with other politicians. It's natural for a person to feel some kind of group affinity for the people they interact with the most. The result is they're even less connected to the societies they are nominally a part of. It also makes them much more invested in perpetuating the system and less receptive to society. edit: This was intentional as it was thought that such a system would reduce international conflict.
        squigz 2y ago
        > The result is they're even less connected to the societies they are nominally a part of. It also makes them much more invested in perpetuating the system and less receptive to society. How might we start to fix that, do you think? I don't imagine globalization is going anywhere.
        throwaway48476 2y ago
        Idk, it depends on what you want to happen. When dealing with complexity tooling usually helps. I tend to think instead of redacting documents when FOIAd everything should be public by default. We could have graph tools that markup the connections and make the world more comprehensible.
        squigz 2y ago
        Well I'm curious what you think, so really it depends on what you want to happen, which presumably would include fixing this: > The result is they're even less connected to the societies they are nominally a part of. It also makes them much more invested in perpetuating the system and less receptive to society.
        throwaway48476 2y ago
        There's a correlation between inequality and political stability and absent some kind of societal shift, taxes. But this is very reductive.
    - tokai 2y ago
      It would be a pretty big change to outlaw afd, so how does that fit with your statement?
      - throwaway48476 2y ago
        I don't think it would happen, it's a move of pure desperation without public concensus.
    - throw14125 2y ago
      Yes, they cling to their positions and pensions. In the case of Germany/SPD it is especially amusing (or tragic): With a leader like Willy Brandt and the historical SPD they'd easily get 40%. The current mediocrities in the SPD are old enough to know that. Yet they still prefer their positions over actually serving the country.
  - amiga386 2y ago
    Remember the last time Germany banned membership of specific political parties? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree
    - tokai 2y ago
      That's not the last time at all. They have banned parties regular since ww2 on the basis of Strafgesetzbuch section 86a. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a
      - amiga386 2y ago
        I was imprecise in saying "the last time", I was aiming for a specific comparison. Also, I'm fairly sure Strafgesetzbuch section 86a is not what bans parties and membership of them, but censors their symbols and imagery. The Basic Law (Grundgesetz) article 21(2) is what bans parties. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany_v._the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany_v._...
        tokai 2y ago
        It was very obviously that you were going for a specific comparison. Thats usually the reason why people misrepresent things. The article literally has a list of political groups that were banned on the basis on the law.
        amiga386 2y ago
        The article has a list of parties whose symbols were banned by that law. Strafgesetzbuch section 86a bans the symbols of "unconstitutional parties". But what bans the parties? Who decides parties are unconstitutional? That is Grundgesetz article 21(2): Parties that, by reason of their aims or the behaviour of their adherents, seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany shall be unconstitutional. The Federal Constitutional Court shall rule on the question of unconstitutionality. Parteien, die nach ihren Zielen oder nach dem Verhalten ihrer Anhänger darauf ausgehen, die freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung zu beeinträchtigen oder zu beseitigen oder den Bestand der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zu gefährden, sind verfassungswidrig. Über die Frage der Verfassungswidrigkeit entscheidet das Bundesverfassungsgericht.
  - OKRainbowKid 2y ago
    "uni party" is AFD lingo. And when that "outlet" has, in parts, goals that are incompatible with our constitution, then a discussion (and it's not much more at this stage) about a Verbotsprozess seems appropriate. To give some more context, the possibility to forbid parties that work against the foundations of our democracy is explicitly defined in the constitution, it is not a purely political move to silence opposition, as your seems to imply.
    - logicchains 2y ago
      I'm curious what goals the AfD has that are incompatible with the German constitution.
      - OKRainbowKid 2y ago
        That is gonna be the central question of said process, if it is initiated.
        logicchains 2y ago
        Sorry, I meant what goals does the AfD have that are alleged to be incompatible with the German constitution.
        OKRainbowKid 2y ago
        I'm not interested in participating in a discussion on that topic, I'm sure you can find plenty of material using a search engine of your choice. I apologize if you're genuinely interested, but I really have 0 desire to respond to sealioning. EDIT: For starters https://afd-verbot.de/beweise?category=demokratiefeindlichkeit https://afd-verbot.de/beweise?category=demokratiefeindlichke... seems to have a comprehensive list of potential evidence. The site and material are German though.
      - mppm 2y ago
        Nothing in particular. European media work hard to paint the AfD as a fringe-right party, but its stated agenda is basically to prioritize national interests. This is something that the current government in Germany has failed at very badly, and the populace is not alltogether blind to this fact. In all recent elections, the AfD is now the top or second party, with 30%+ overall support, despite persistent attempts at political marginalization.
  - pelorat 2y ago
    Well, you might want to read the German constitution. In short is says; any group or political party whose goal is an upheaval of the current system of government can be declared unconstitutional.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 2y ago
      Does replacing CSU/CDU via elections counts as upheaval of the current system of government?
      - rbanffy 2y ago
        No. Democratic elections are part of the system of government. If the AfD wants to significantly hinder democratic representation via elections, reduce the ability of non-native Germans to vote, or reduce the power of elected representatives, then it is acting against the system of government and must be outlawed.
        Andrew_nenakhov 2y ago
        Do you have any evidence that AdD wants to 'significantly hinder democratic representation via elections'? So far I do see efforts to do just that by parties that promote censorship ('stop disinformation') and try to ban their political opponents like AfD.
        rbanffy 2y ago
        No. And that’s why it hasn’t been banned yet.
        Andrew_nenakhov 2y ago
        So why even the talk of it then? You can't just ban the opposition if you expect to lose elections to them.
  - TomK32 2y ago
    The AfD has a serious right-wing problem and doesn't want to clean up their act. Banning the party might lead to failure as with the NPD (which since renamed itself) but it's worth a try and in parallel axing their funding like just happened earlier this year with the NPD should be attempted. I disagree with your "totalitarian measure" comment, it is the AfD who are not compatible with the German constitution and the majority of Germany's society who prefer a fair democracy should not bulge the shouting of demands by populists, Reichsbürger, Querdenker. The connections to the AfD do exist, AfD politician Malsack-Winkemann (then already not a member of the Bundestag anymore, a security issue in my eyes) toured through the Reichstag with people from the Reichtsbürger group around Heinrich XIII. Prinz Reuß. Local AfD politician Andreas Geitz was even part of the Reichstagsturm in 2020.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
      If the people want AfD, is not a clear indicator that either something is wrong with Germany's highest law or its interpretation? The benefit of there being being AfD in the open is that it would be in the open. Is it a good idea to keep things hidden?
      - TomK32 2y ago
        If you are unhappy with a law, get a majority. AfD just like it's spiritual predecessor in the NSDAP won't get that. The best Hitler got before his Machtergreifung was only 43% right after the Reichstagbrand. There was a path that we - thanks to the magic that is hindsight - can clearly see now and we should use that knowlegde to prevent history from repeating, but one thing is certain: The political extremes won't play by the rules, let alone play fair, to reach power. We've seen this with Hitler, we saw it with the Republican party in Florida 2020 to get Bush into power and we've seen it with January 6th and again with the preparations republican across the country do to prevent voters from voting or not validate results.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        << If you are unhappy with a law, get a majority. << The best Hitler got before his Machtergreifung was only 43% right after the Reichstagbrand. Do you know how much support the remaining power centers had? Does it mean he had majority? Does it change your argument? If so, how? I am avoiding addressing the meat of your argument so far and I am letting small things like Bush 2020 slide, because you are not wrong about power. You do, however, appear to be blinded by the convenience of Left/Right political spectrum.
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    Considering what the AfD stands for, I'm in for them being banned from political life. German society has been extremely patient with them, refraining to use the word "nazi" when it kind of fits. I don't think it'll happen though, because they manage to be as nazi as possible within the letter of the law. > The SPD should instead examine why they themselves are losing votes. Extremist discourse is appealing. Much like using lead in gasoline. It's very hard to compete with hate-based politics when you don't have to outline actual actionable and long-term viable policies and can rely on soundbites for effect. edit: burn, karma, burn
    - PeterisP 2y ago
      Radical parties gaining mass support is an indication that the centrist parties which should be 'more reasonable' are deliberately ignoring some major factor which a lot of the voters care about. Anyone looking at the rise of AfD should also look at the example of Denmark, which some years earlier had also seen a strong rise of radical alt-right parties, but once the centrists switched their stance against immigration, at the next elections the radicals went back down to their rightful 1% or so of votes. That is also an example which shows that indeed it is possible to compete with hate-based politics with actual actionable and long-term viable policies. Indeed, SPD should instead examine why they themselves are losing votes and consider it their duty to provide some alternative for German voters so that a person can vote against immigration without getting the full neo-nazi package in addition to that.
      - rbanffy 2y ago
        > deliberately ignoring some major factor which a lot of the voters care about. Is it that so, or is it that hate-based shallow arguments appeal to a particular audience more than "more reasonable" policies or discourse? > once the centrists switched their stance against immigration Then the far-right would have won and turned the political mainstream into xenophobes. Not a great outcome for the society as a whole. Would arguments centered on supporting immigrants (and refugees fleeing humanitarian crisis) and integrating them into their host society have the same appeal for people who have been fed a diet of fear and hatred? There has to be a line that should never be crossed in any democratic society. The far right has crossed it.
- jeffhuys 2y ago
  That’s not a rebuttal. That’s whataboutism.
- t-3 2y ago
  Is Hungary no longer part of the EU?
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    It's almost getting to that point. Poland was also sanctioned a couple years back if my memory doesn't fail me.
llm_trw 2y ago
And which direction is that? Because I find people are very upset about this until it's used on people they don't like - socialists or fascists - and then they are very happy it's being used to 'stop the slide into fascism/communism' until it's used on them again.
- rosmax_1337 2y ago
  Site guidelines prevent me from elaborating further. Have a good day. :-)
  - concordDance 2y ago
    Bringing up immigration is indeed probably a good method of generating a lot of heat and very little light. There are places one can calmly discuss even the most abhorrent of ideas like giving parents the right of infanticide or banning home ownership or requiring parents to swap their baby for a random one without anyone getting heated, but this isn't one of them. Maybe it was 10 years ago? I dunno.
- highcountess 2y ago
  Yes. The tyrannical clan of the ruling class knows this method very well and uses it to great effect repeatedly and with apparently little to no reaction or pushback. It is not the only method or even class of manipulative and abusive methods. It is basically just a bait and switch at its core. A famous example many here will likely still be able to associate with is “The Patriot act”, which should have really been called “The Hunt Patriots act”; in reality a kind of mop-up operation after the USA has already long ago been functionally and psychologically conquered without the people even realizing it, kind of like how people can one day find themselves wondering how they slid into a very abusive relationship little by little without realizing it or being able to take action to prevent it. The only difference being that many, definitely not most people haven’t even started asking themselves whether they are in an abusive relationship, let alone how they got there. People still haven’t even realized that the whole premise of the EU is a tyrannical and hostile illegitimate imitation government. It has no legitimacy under its own claimed democratic principles, it’s the timeshare fraud of governance; sell a fantasy and good presentation, while reality is a fraudulent and destructive nightmare.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

This will be used to silence political dissent in the EU. The current rulers fear the change which could come about if they allow the political climate to shift in the direction which it is ready to.

kranke155 2y ago

How silly. Orban and his fellows are the ones who engage in authoritarianism.

aldsfh 2y ago
There is currently an initiative to forbid a political party, the AfD in Germany. This is not supported by the CDU, but by others. While I do not like the AfD, forbidding political parties that serve as an outlet for people who do not support the uniparty and their essentially identical policies seems to be one of the most totalitarian measures in postwar Germany. The SPD should instead examine why they themselves are losing votes.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  Politics across the world has ossified and become terrified of change. So they stick their heads in the sand.
  - squigz 2y ago
    Why do you think that is?
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      Globalization. If you're a rich person you spend most of your life in the company of other rich people across the world. If you're a politician you spend it with other politicians. It's natural for a person to feel some kind of group affinity for the people they interact with the most. The result is they're even less connected to the societies they are nominally a part of. It also makes them much more invested in perpetuating the system and less receptive to society. edit: This was intentional as it was thought that such a system would reduce international conflict.
      - squigz 2y ago
        > The result is they're even less connected to the societies they are nominally a part of. It also makes them much more invested in perpetuating the system and less receptive to society. How might we start to fix that, do you think? I don't imagine globalization is going anywhere.
        throwaway48476 2y ago
        Idk, it depends on what you want to happen. When dealing with complexity tooling usually helps. I tend to think instead of redacting documents when FOIAd everything should be public by default. We could have graph tools that markup the connections and make the world more comprehensible.
        squigz 2y ago
        Well I'm curious what you think, so really it depends on what you want to happen, which presumably would include fixing this: > The result is they're even less connected to the societies they are nominally a part of. It also makes them much more invested in perpetuating the system and less receptive to society.
        throwaway48476 2y ago
        There's a correlation between inequality and political stability and absent some kind of societal shift, taxes. But this is very reductive.
  - tokai 2y ago
    It would be a pretty big change to outlaw afd, so how does that fit with your statement?
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      I don't think it would happen, it's a move of pure desperation without public concensus.
  - throw14125 2y ago
    Yes, they cling to their positions and pensions. In the case of Germany/SPD it is especially amusing (or tragic): With a leader like Willy Brandt and the historical SPD they'd easily get 40%. The current mediocrities in the SPD are old enough to know that. Yet they still prefer their positions over actually serving the country.
- amiga386 2y ago
  Remember the last time Germany banned membership of specific political parties? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree
  - tokai 2y ago
    That's not the last time at all. They have banned parties regular since ww2 on the basis of Strafgesetzbuch section 86a. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a
    - amiga386 2y ago
      I was imprecise in saying "the last time", I was aiming for a specific comparison. Also, I'm fairly sure Strafgesetzbuch section 86a is not what bans parties and membership of them, but censors their symbols and imagery. The Basic Law (Grundgesetz) article 21(2) is what bans parties. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany_v._the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany_v._...
      - tokai 2y ago
        It was very obviously that you were going for a specific comparison. Thats usually the reason why people misrepresent things. The article literally has a list of political groups that were banned on the basis on the law.
        amiga386 2y ago
        The article has a list of parties whose symbols were banned by that law. Strafgesetzbuch section 86a bans the symbols of "unconstitutional parties". But what bans the parties? Who decides parties are unconstitutional? That is Grundgesetz article 21(2): Parties that, by reason of their aims or the behaviour of their adherents, seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany shall be unconstitutional. The Federal Constitutional Court shall rule on the question of unconstitutionality. Parteien, die nach ihren Zielen oder nach dem Verhalten ihrer Anhänger darauf ausgehen, die freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung zu beeinträchtigen oder zu beseitigen oder den Bestand der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zu gefährden, sind verfassungswidrig. Über die Frage der Verfassungswidrigkeit entscheidet das Bundesverfassungsgericht.
- OKRainbowKid 2y ago
  "uni party" is AFD lingo. And when that "outlet" has, in parts, goals that are incompatible with our constitution, then a discussion (and it's not much more at this stage) about a Verbotsprozess seems appropriate. To give some more context, the possibility to forbid parties that work against the foundations of our democracy is explicitly defined in the constitution, it is not a purely political move to silence opposition, as your seems to imply.
  - logicchains 2y ago
    I'm curious what goals the AfD has that are incompatible with the German constitution.
    - OKRainbowKid 2y ago
      That is gonna be the central question of said process, if it is initiated.
      - logicchains 2y ago
        Sorry, I meant what goals does the AfD have that are alleged to be incompatible with the German constitution.
        OKRainbowKid 2y ago
        I'm not interested in participating in a discussion on that topic, I'm sure you can find plenty of material using a search engine of your choice. I apologize if you're genuinely interested, but I really have 0 desire to respond to sealioning. EDIT: For starters https://afd-verbot.de/beweise?category=demokratiefeindlichkeit https://afd-verbot.de/beweise?category=demokratiefeindlichke... seems to have a comprehensive list of potential evidence. The site and material are German though.
    - mppm 2y ago
      Nothing in particular. European media work hard to paint the AfD as a fringe-right party, but its stated agenda is basically to prioritize national interests. This is something that the current government in Germany has failed at very badly, and the populace is not alltogether blind to this fact. In all recent elections, the AfD is now the top or second party, with 30%+ overall support, despite persistent attempts at political marginalization.
- pelorat 2y ago
  Well, you might want to read the German constitution. In short is says; any group or political party whose goal is an upheaval of the current system of government can be declared unconstitutional.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 2y ago
    Does replacing CSU/CDU via elections counts as upheaval of the current system of government?
    - rbanffy 2y ago
      No. Democratic elections are part of the system of government. If the AfD wants to significantly hinder democratic representation via elections, reduce the ability of non-native Germans to vote, or reduce the power of elected representatives, then it is acting against the system of government and must be outlawed.
      - Andrew_nenakhov 2y ago
        Do you have any evidence that AdD wants to 'significantly hinder democratic representation via elections'? So far I do see efforts to do just that by parties that promote censorship ('stop disinformation') and try to ban their political opponents like AfD.
        rbanffy 2y ago
        No. And that’s why it hasn’t been banned yet.
        Andrew_nenakhov 2y ago
        So why even the talk of it then? You can't just ban the opposition if you expect to lose elections to them.
- TomK32 2y ago
  The AfD has a serious right-wing problem and doesn't want to clean up their act. Banning the party might lead to failure as with the NPD (which since renamed itself) but it's worth a try and in parallel axing their funding like just happened earlier this year with the NPD should be attempted. I disagree with your "totalitarian measure" comment, it is the AfD who are not compatible with the German constitution and the majority of Germany's society who prefer a fair democracy should not bulge the shouting of demands by populists, Reichsbürger, Querdenker. The connections to the AfD do exist, AfD politician Malsack-Winkemann (then already not a member of the Bundestag anymore, a security issue in my eyes) toured through the Reichstag with people from the Reichtsbürger group around Heinrich XIII. Prinz Reuß. Local AfD politician Andreas Geitz was even part of the Reichstagsturm in 2020.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
    If the people want AfD, is not a clear indicator that either something is wrong with Germany's highest law or its interpretation? The benefit of there being being AfD in the open is that it would be in the open. Is it a good idea to keep things hidden?
    - TomK32 2y ago
      If you are unhappy with a law, get a majority. AfD just like it's spiritual predecessor in the NSDAP won't get that. The best Hitler got before his Machtergreifung was only 43% right after the Reichstagbrand. There was a path that we - thanks to the magic that is hindsight - can clearly see now and we should use that knowlegde to prevent history from repeating, but one thing is certain: The political extremes won't play by the rules, let alone play fair, to reach power. We've seen this with Hitler, we saw it with the Republican party in Florida 2020 to get Bush into power and we've seen it with January 6th and again with the preparations republican across the country do to prevent voters from voting or not validate results.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        << If you are unhappy with a law, get a majority. << The best Hitler got before his Machtergreifung was only 43% right after the Reichstagbrand. Do you know how much support the remaining power centers had? Does it mean he had majority? Does it change your argument? If so, how? I am avoiding addressing the meat of your argument so far and I am letting small things like Bush 2020 slide, because you are not wrong about power. You do, however, appear to be blinded by the convenience of Left/Right political spectrum.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  Considering what the AfD stands for, I'm in for them being banned from political life. German society has been extremely patient with them, refraining to use the word "nazi" when it kind of fits. I don't think it'll happen though, because they manage to be as nazi as possible within the letter of the law. > The SPD should instead examine why they themselves are losing votes. Extremist discourse is appealing. Much like using lead in gasoline. It's very hard to compete with hate-based politics when you don't have to outline actual actionable and long-term viable policies and can rely on soundbites for effect. edit: burn, karma, burn
  - PeterisP 2y ago
    Radical parties gaining mass support is an indication that the centrist parties which should be 'more reasonable' are deliberately ignoring some major factor which a lot of the voters care about. Anyone looking at the rise of AfD should also look at the example of Denmark, which some years earlier had also seen a strong rise of radical alt-right parties, but once the centrists switched their stance against immigration, at the next elections the radicals went back down to their rightful 1% or so of votes. That is also an example which shows that indeed it is possible to compete with hate-based politics with actual actionable and long-term viable policies. Indeed, SPD should instead examine why they themselves are losing votes and consider it their duty to provide some alternative for German voters so that a person can vote against immigration without getting the full neo-nazi package in addition to that.
    - rbanffy 2y ago
      > deliberately ignoring some major factor which a lot of the voters care about. Is it that so, or is it that hate-based shallow arguments appeal to a particular audience more than "more reasonable" policies or discourse? > once the centrists switched their stance against immigration Then the far-right would have won and turned the political mainstream into xenophobes. Not a great outcome for the society as a whole. Would arguments centered on supporting immigrants (and refugees fleeing humanitarian crisis) and integrating them into their host society have the same appeal for people who have been fed a diet of fear and hatred? There has to be a line that should never be crossed in any democratic society. The far right has crossed it.
jeffhuys 2y ago
That’s not a rebuttal. That’s whataboutism.
t-3 2y ago
Is Hungary no longer part of the EU?
- rbanffy 2y ago
  It's almost getting to that point. Poland was also sanctioned a couple years back if my memory doesn't fail me.

llm_trw 2y ago

And which direction is that? Because I find people are very upset about this until it's used on people they don't like - socialists or fascists - and then they are very happy it's being used to 'stop the slide into fascism/communism' until it's used on them again.

rosmax_1337 2y ago
Site guidelines prevent me from elaborating further. Have a good day. :-)
- concordDance 2y ago
  Bringing up immigration is indeed probably a good method of generating a lot of heat and very little light. There are places one can calmly discuss even the most abhorrent of ideas like giving parents the right of infanticide or banning home ownership or requiring parents to swap their baby for a random one without anyone getting heated, but this isn't one of them. Maybe it was 10 years ago? I dunno.
highcountess 2y ago
Yes. The tyrannical clan of the ruling class knows this method very well and uses it to great effect repeatedly and with apparently little to no reaction or pushback. It is not the only method or even class of manipulative and abusive methods. It is basically just a bait and switch at its core. A famous example many here will likely still be able to associate with is “The Patriot act”, which should have really been called “The Hunt Patriots act”; in reality a kind of mop-up operation after the USA has already long ago been functionally and psychologically conquered without the people even realizing it, kind of like how people can one day find themselves wondering how they slid into a very abusive relationship little by little without realizing it or being able to take action to prevent it. The only difference being that many, definitely not most people haven’t even started asking themselves whether they are in an abusive relationship, let alone how they got there. People still haven’t even realized that the whole premise of the EU is a tyrannical and hostile illegitimate imitation government. It has no legitimacy under its own claimed democratic principles, it’s the timeshare fraud of governance; sell a fantasy and good presentation, while reality is a fraudulent and destructive nightmare.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]