HOME | DD
Konstalieri — Leftopia: Sorry from Germany
#comedy #germany #political
Published: 2019-05-20 21:36:30 +0000 UTC; Views: 490; Favourites: 6; Downloads: 1
Redirect to original
Description
On the Centennial Anniversary of the 2nd world war, former prime minister of Germany Angela Merkel announces her sorrow about what her country had done, even though we heard this kind of apology well over 100 times already. (like jeez, you don't see Italy or any other country to do the same)
user of the day: todays user being featured is Yukiwoski .
Related content
Comments: 63
Ow hey look who turned up, thanks my dude, am glad that you love it. (though am not gonna lie, i could have done it much better)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Also, on that note: why is this called "leftopia", when Merkel is a centre-right christian democrat and a social conservative?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Is she though ? Cause from what i've seen from her, some of the stuff that she did dosn't really scream conservative and infact, i would be more inclined to believe that she is more a Globalist/Democratic Sociolest.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'd urge you to remember that "left" and "right" are relative terms, and that what's considered "left" in a country like the US is pretty right wing as far as many European countries are concerned. Furthermore, "globalist" is not a term that belongs specifically to either the left or the right.
What makes you think she is a socialist?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Are you shore about that ? Cause to me "right" and "left" are pretty damn consistent across the board in terms of there term useage.
Also if Globalist isn't in ether the left or the right then what the hell is it then, Non-sequiter ?
Now as for her being a socialist, here is an idea, if she wasn't then why is she pushing her everyone is equal despite their past (whether criminal or not) for example (that seems to me pretty socialism to me), riddle me that pal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am quite sure of that, actually. Political terminology is anything but consistent- it varies wildly in meaning depending on what era or location it's being used in.
It's an issue of trade, mostly. The disagreement, whether left or right, usually comes down to how much you want to globalize the economy- IE how much trade exchange do you want to be split across nations; should we or should we not manufacture, for example, the parts of a computer in one country or in multiple different countries? People who are for efficiency of economy usually favour globalism, whereas people with a stronger interest in the strength of their nation relative to other countries usually oppose it. This is not something that the left and the right both are clearly for or against.
What do you think 'socialism' means? I have to ask, because I think the word means different things to us and I don't want to critique your beliefs without a clear definition of the word.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I see what your saying about globalism and while i can agree with it in terms of making the economy more efficient, but as the old saying goes "there is such a thing as too much of a good thing". (you do realise that we did went way too far with globalism right ?)
My diffination of socialism is just like everyone else's, to quote "socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." (does this explane your answer ?)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not really for or against globalism any more than I am for or against the postman, so to speak. It's there, and it's sort of unavoidable. For as long as capitalism is in effect, the most cost-effective measures will be taken, and globalism seems to be part of that. Have we gone too far? Maybe; I am open to argument.
You're probably the first conservative I've spoken to that has an accurate definition of socialism on hand, although I consider it incomplete- it's not just state ownership of production and distribution, but it's state ownership with the explicit ideological goal of eliminating capitalism and producing to meet demand, not to exceed it, to empower the working class and end the profit motive.
This considered, I find it strange that you consider Merkel a socialist. If there's one thing most conservatives and centre-lefties seem to agree on, it's that the state should take an active role in solving people's problems through state power. Merkel's centre-right christian democrats (and I've never once seen an explicitly christian party that leaned left; they're usually socially conservative) is in all likeliness no different.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I see what your saying and just to poke the old bear with a stick, i'll propose the argument that yes (in Europe) we've gone too fair and that maybe as a result of it, it also increased migration. Is there a possible correlation between globalism and the ever increasing migrant crisis and if so/not then why ? (just an idea to have an argument, food for though pal)
Yes will i agree with you that many agree that "the state should take an active role in solving people's problems through state power". Now i know that what am about to ask is gonna run out left field but..., what is your definition of democratic socialism ? (just a question, not trying to make any bold points, just curious)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In what way have we gone too far and why?
Democratic socialism would be the aim of reaching a socialist society- workers own production, capitalism abolished, production to match need rather than exceed it- gradually through democratic means. This is in contrast to social democracy, which embraces capitalism and works to provide security for its people while allowing a free market.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
beautiful drawing of merkel and of mr fox-guy, along with some cool face expressions, good linework and with some nice use of perspective+ size-play.
BUT, i will have to disagree with you, on one thing:
germany apologizing for the bad actions of the nazi's isnt a bad thing.
if anything, it shows us that modern germany (and its people) actually feel bad about the horrible crimes that their compatriots did in 1940's, and about the genocides that occured by the nazis.
should a child apologize for the sins of his father?
usually no, but in this case: yes.
you see, if a leader of a nation apologizes for mistakes of the past, thats not a bad thing, thats a positive sign of a responcible and an honourable nation.
remember: if we learn from our mistakes, it means that we will not do them again.
however, if we forget our old mistakes (as a country), then we are bound to repeat them.
we must not forget the horrors of the holocaust and we must not forget that the nazis destroyed france, chehoslovakia, greece, norway and so many countries on their path.
as long as we remember and apologize for our old mistakes, it means that we will be better people, and a better nation in general.
thats all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I thank you for the long and detail comment of yours, but i would like to drop in this rebudull to your comment.
While yes it's important to show that you're willing to take responsibility for the past, infact more power to them.
But i do have a problem with them saying it over and over and OVER again. Listen everyone can say that there sowy, an apology only sticks if you actually mean it and do try to take a ments, actions speak louder then then words my dear friend.
Germany has proven it self from it's past already by providing it's industry for example, it's doesn't need to apologize for something that happened years ago, i mean they do teach how not to Nazi in Schools right so what's the point of apologizing for awareness if they teatch that stuff in school. (unless they pull a turkey on us out of the blue)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I agree that countries shouldn’t try to hide any horrible past actions though I have to disagree that Leaders should be apologizing for said past actions simply because people today had nothing to do with those past actions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So what's the actual quote?
A national leader apologizing for past wrongs, on behalf of their nation, is not a bad thing. Taking responsibility for the past is fine.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Yes it's important to show that you're willing to take responsibility for the past, infact more power to them.
But i do have a problem with them saying it over and over and OVER again. Listen everyone can say that there sowy, an apology only sticks if you actually mean it and do try to take a ments, actions speak louder then then words my dear friend.
Germany has proven it self from it's past already by providing it's industry for example, it's doesn't need to apologize for something that happened years ago, i mean they do teach how not to Nazi in Schools right so what's the point of apologizing for awareness if they teatch that stuff in school. (unless they pull a turkey on us out of the blue)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Do they really apologize over and over as such? You're only using the one example to make this statement.
Well, what would prove they've changed meaningfully isn't industry and such- although it's a bit ironic that only a handful of decades after the third reich, a fully democratic Germany has become a dominant European power through trade and economy etc, without a need for war- but taking steps to combat nazism, prejudice and authoritarianism, which I believe they've done. This seems reasonable, since nazism is not dead in Germany, and authoritarian right wingers are gaining influence in Germany just like they are in the rest of the western world.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes they do apologize every single year, if it was a "one example" then i woden't be making this strip in the first place and even then if it truly was a one time thing, then people would have pointend it out to me long before you came in to the scene. (just saying)
And ow hey you just reminded me the reason why Germany's apology might be a bit disingenuous. In there attemp to police people from saying anything against their policies, they became more of thing that they were supposed to fight against, instead of killing us with there bigotry they are killing us with their acceptance (like i've been saying to many, we are living under Hitler's wet dream and or the 4th reich). So with that in mind, it seem a tad hypocritical that they would say sorry for trying to take over Europe only for them to return to there job of run Europe under THERE vision of what THEY want and not what WE the european people want, it serouslly makes this theory look ligite www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2TZdK… .(and before you say anything, this is a joke i do not believe this theory, though i won't be suprised if that turns out to be true, in the event that it is please feel free to pay 1000 euro on paypal for telling you so, also what i was ratting on about is also a joke)
Also speaking of the opposition gaining influence, yeah you can thank her and her partys shitty way of running the country, don't blame the german people it's her fault that the right is winning.
(Also excuse me asking, but whose side are you on ? mine or the globalists ! Not trying to say that i don't trust you, am just a bit confused on witch side of the political table are you standding on)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, your comic certainly doesn't link to anything that says they do this every year, nor do you say that they do in your artist's comments, so I think it's a fair question. Do you mind providing a source on that statement?
In what sense is this hypocritical more specifically?
And why would you link me a youtube video whose theory you don't actually believe in? What is that supposed to prove?
It's not just opposition that gains influence, it's a nationalistic far right, from the golden dawn neo-nazis in Greece to the far-right nationalists under LePen in France. Moderate right wingers are not necessarily the same as them.
It's fair to ask. I consider myself a classical liberal; philosophically I'm dead-centre between left and right, but strongly anchored in the libertarian camp. I am opposed to the identity politics of the left as well as the nationalism of the far-right, and I am for ideas that are commonsense solutions for the betterment of a nation's people with an emphasis on a free exchange of ideas.
I think it's best I clarify what 'globalist' means to me, too. A lot of people throw the word around carelessly, talking about it as if there's some conspiracy of tyranny amongst the world's leadership, or something. This is, to me, a conspiracy theory. When I think 'globalist', I think it means a globalized economy where you spread out manufacture of goods across multiple different countries across the world to optimize profits. It benefits people more in the long run, and as somebody who's not necessarily against capitalism, I think that's a good thing since it leads to more overall prosperity. I am not a nationalist; I do not think any one nation is in and of itself better or worth more than any other on its own, including my own. What matters are the values, the philosophy around it (in my case, classical liberalism) and how well you can justify it rationally.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry man but i can't find the exact source nor data about it. (though i did found this list of Japan's Apologies though en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_… )
I thought it was obvious, they say how sorry they are for trying to control Europe only for them have a clear dominnets over european politics and economics. Now as for the video, i was using it to prove at how even though they like to say that they are trying to move on and leave the other European Nations to make their own decisions, they still have the power over us, if we were free then Greece wasn't going to be in the dame Union by now. (you see what am saying to ya)
Yeah they are gaining influence, so what ? that is true democracy that people get to have a representaion to witch they can call out the party the represents there believes, this is democracy for ya, unless you cancel out everyone from having a voice then this is the best way to reach a neutral point (in terms of politics) as we can get. Now don't you get me wrong, the alt-left (Communism and anarchism) is wrong and so is the alt-right (nazism and fascism) and if i could i would have gotten rid of them, but everytime i get to this point i have to always catch and remind myself that "No, you try to censor them out isn't going to work, infact you'll only gonna make things worse and even if it did work, what differences will it make you from them for you'll be just as if not even more guilty than them", so thus i say ether every singal party get to have a voice or not at all.
I see what your saying and i understand most of your views and points. Now as for my political views, to make a long story short. I at first started as a leburall fella (still am actually in the form of a classical leburall, though i don't really call my self that anymore), but as the years when on i've started to consider my self less and less like a liberal and more like a conservitive (that and 3rd wave Feminist's, globalist's, antifa's and modern leftist's didn't help matters), so as a resolt i conseder my self as a right wing, conservative, Greek Nationalist (as in a country nationalist aka patriot, not a race nationalist). Now before you get the wrong idea (like the media of today), i want to make my self 100% clear that i hate the Alt. left (communism and anarchism) and the Alt. right (Nazism and Facism) (so basically, i hate both sides of the extreme) and that am always willing to debate with the opposing side (that being the left wing) on a variety of subjects.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you can't find a source of Germany apologizing yearly- or even more than once- then I find it strange you'd make the accusation that they make a habit of over-apologizing for the past. I personally wouldn't want to make claims I can't back up.
Well, let's see here- what's being apologized for, I imagine, has more to do with the immense and inexcusable cruelties Nazi Germany inflicted on the rest of Europe moreso than expansionism. And even if that was what they apologized for, I do not see the inconsistency. In the first case, it happened through violence and unjustified wars of aggression; in the second case it happened through free trade and democratic voting processes, all non-violent. They aren't the same at all, and I'm not sure how it's hypocritical to be against the first and for the second.
I'll make my thoughts on this quite clear: far-right populist/nazi/fascist groups gaining influence is not a matter of democracy and the people's voice being heard, because these ideologies are explicitly hostile to the democratic process that lets them in. If a fascist party gains prominence, they're not going to relinquish power when their term is up because fascists do not believe in freedom, or the democratic process, or a government by the people, for the people- they believe in an oppressive one-party state that decides who is and isn't allowed to speak, who is and isn't allowed to even exist, and they will use violence to silence those who dare protest. These ideologies surfacing again is a very real and present danger to everything that makes modern society a good place to live in, and I consider it dangerously naive to just write it off as them being given a voice. Fascism acts like a corroding agent on any free society it gains influence in. A free, tolerant society, ironically, cannot permit intolerant, unfree ideas to take root, else it loses them all.
I understand. While I disagree with nationalism and even patriotism (I think they're stifling to the individual, and individualism is essential now more than ever), I understand why they exist and why people believe in them.
I personally have a strong contempt both for communists and fascists (all types of authoritarians), but I have some sympathy for libertarians and anarchists, although I don't think their models for society are practical; I dislike all forms of radicalism. Most of all I think it's important to have a dialogue between opposing ideas, with the exception of ideas that actively want to destroy your freedoms.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Listen man, i live in Greece. Just because the internet is a place of information, it doesn't mean that ALL of it is available. That facts must have been lost during Germany's big censorship period of the country's internet history (seen here www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLYjI4… ), but ok after doing some search (and by that i mean youtube), this is the best evidence that i could find shown here www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh4HDV… . But yeah i get it, i need evedence in order to prove things, i'll try and keep it in mind next time OK.
Ok now look, yes your right the two cases are radically different (one with violence and the other not), but i wasn't even trying to imply that the are both the same (i don't understand how you came to think that i was saying that there both one in the same), i was only trying to point out how they both pretty much have took control over Europe in terms of economic and social politics. Now listen if i was to hate one of the extremes i would be more on the former (the first case) then the lader (the second case), but you know what's makes the second just as worst as the first, it's when they censor and even show interest in planning for wa- *AHM * "army" all across Europe and try to sell this to us as democracy, then am sorry but that's treason to me. (if that dosn't scream hypocrisy, then i don't know what is anymore)
Hm yeah i've hearing what you've been saying about the alt. right and yeah i can agree that it's preaty bad. But answer me this, shouldn't we also be worried about the alt. left, Since they are just as horrific and or danguries as the alt. right ? (am asking you this because your comment makes it sound as if there is no danger to become a commie as opposed to a fascist, please correct me)
Now for your "sympathy for libertarians and anarchists" comment, i was gonna skullded you for it. but to be honest am i any diffrent considersing that i to some sympathy of my own, that being conservatism and some nationalistic beliefs, even if they are impractical for society. But even with that i am grateful that you understand and hey i totally 100% agree with you about having dialogue between opposing ideas, with the exception of ideas that are actively destroying freedoms.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Greatkingrat88 i agree 100% with you on this.
if a leader of a nation apologizes for mistakes of the past, thats not a bad thing, thats a positive sign of a responcible and an honourable nation.
remember: if we learn from our mistakes, it means that we will not do them again.
however, if we forget our old mistakes (as a country), then we are bound to repeat them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's ironic because Japan, one of the Axis powers, still refuses to apologize for what it did to China during WWII
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
That great we got both extremes, the one who appolgizes way to much to the point of losing it's meaning (Germany) and the other who from day one dosn't even say a thing at all (Japan), ow how i hate both extremes don't you ?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True, but you'll have to choose the lesser of two evils: The one who doesn't apologize, or the one who apologized too much
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well if i had to choose one of them, then it would be the one who apologized too much, but then again there is the old saying that "insincere concern is worse than showing no concern". (you see what am saying)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
My thoughts exactly. Or at least they’ve stopped. Either way, Japan knows better.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
German was once a saver of the world until the banker defeat them and make them a cower. Sad.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's preaty much modern day Germany, yea.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It's getting really annoying, what happens in the past stays in the past. No need to bring it up and make people feel guilty when they had no part in it. You don't see Italians/Romans feel quilty for what their ancestors did.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wow you took the words right out of my mouth, that's exactly what i've been saying ! (how did you do that ?)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
To be honest, we humans are no strangers to the cruel and unusual. It ain't the first time we've killed each other over as something as trivial as religion or wanting more land. It also isn't the first time a Genocide or attempted Genocide has happened.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah your right, i totally agree.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I know right? I think I heard Japan stopped apologizing. Is it so difficult for Germany to do the same?
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
When did Japan ever apologize in the first place?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I dunno. All I know is that China and Korea have not bounced back from what happened 70+ years ago, and Japan got fed up from their bitching.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm pretty sure Japan is in constant denial of the horrible shit they did in WWII, like the rape of nanking. Which, frankly, is much worse than apologizing for it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I did hear of some denying the Rape of Nanking, but these were only fringe movements. Like the Holocaust, the Rape of Nanking is something that occurred with irrefutable evidence. All I’m surmising is Japan did apologise for it but China and Korea didn’t want to hear it and only wanted endless compensation. To which Japan ceased their apologies. But it’s not that black and white, the Japanese have always been at odds with the Chinese and Koreans for centuries.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
To my knowledge, Japan actively denies it did anything really bad in WWII, but I guess it's possible I'm wrong.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I see. I’m unsure of that as well.
Still, we can agree that Japan’s got bigger balls.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not necessarily? Germany's still by far the bigger player.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's the dominant power in Europe by far, central to the EU as a whole.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, yes, I meant Japan doing a better job of defending their culture and traditions, something Germany didn’t do well a few years back.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Traditions are not inherently valuable and therefore defending them is not necessarily good or bad; the same applies to culture (which is in constant flux, and stubbornly clinging to one set of cultural values equals stagnation).
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It's because Germany is mostly white/Caucassian, and we're susceptible to Liberalism Disease
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>