Another translation by yours truly for the A&N audience. Original source [A]
2024-11-24 Update: Added another bespoke translation, same topic and same author. Original source 2 [A]
I can't help but get that impression right now.
Because of
As if there was a very big regime change from the - at least alleged - state of law and order to an ideological state.
If you want to know how they were able to do it in the GDR or 1933 or the many other situations: Look at the courts. For example, the many home searches for petty reasons or even without any reason.
There are no constitutional rights anymore. But now you can still watch as they get crushed.
For a long time I've been writing that we in Germany have an inversion of basic rights. Originally, the basic rights are defensive rights of the citizens against the state, more precisely, the three pillars of government. The constitution also can't really bind the citizens, because the citizens, the voters, the people are the sovereign, the legislator of the constitution which binds the pillars of government.
But for many years, we are witnessing that everything is going topsy-turvy, that the constitution is redefined as a law to protect an ideology and an entitlement to services and desisting for the state, more precisely, certain parties, against the citizen, an exact inversion.
From what I see, there are two general trains of motivation that get lawyers to that point. I'll call them the direct and indirect, or better maybe, active and passive corruption:
[translation, posts by Prometheus @taxthug:
For >2 years, I have been prophesying that my lawyer colleagues reinterpret the constitution away from defensive rights and towards secondary entitlement rights.
In this time, I have come across incredible lack of knowledge.
Fundamentals of legal philosophy, basic law theory are already hardly present as topics that these people ever heard of. The threefold divide between defensive rights, entitlement rights, and participation rights is unknown. Words like democracy and rule of law are being used synonymously, usually to describe the current system of government, without any value- or principle-based thought. There is no comparing of what you see [and what the principles say], no checking the criteria.
Currently ruling system = democracy.
What happens in that system = good.
Other systems = undemocratic.
Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, de Tocqueville, Montesqieu and their work are completely unknown.
People who graduated with full honors are not familiar with the basics of proportionality checking.
In almost every discussion, there is a disgusting, fascist-seeming law positivism.
The paternalist state is not being recognized as one, if even criticized for it.
From every pore, these lawyers are oozing of subservience to authority, obedience, degradation.
The few exceptions are almost completely silent. From the beginning, they stood alone for the most part. The pressure from clients, partners, colleague was enormous, almost as if it was by design.
Lawyers who you'd find very capable reacted like scared, irrational bunnies. Forgot their legal tools and didn't question anything. First they waited for commands by the politics, then concrete instructions in the media.
These people seemed like incapable children who were searching for their parents, looking for help. Incapable of making independent decisions.
With this context, the #JudgmentOfShame is merely the logical consequence of this overwhelmingly incompetent caste of lawyers.
The legal education system has created an army of conformist executive lawyers and subsumption machines.
The layman may not like it: You can't expect anything from lawyers (anymore)!
Of course I am explicitly excepting the well-known freedom fighters like @jeha2019, @nhaerting, @Gieslerlris and @SylK1966. I admire the commitment and strength of character. But when it comes to #BigLaw, the majority of lawyers is completely lost.
(translation of the rant over, back to the normal text)]
What "Prometheus" is describing here is exactly the herd mechanism in the brain: conformity with the system in power. You could maybe even think of a kind of Stockholm syndrome. Maybe that's caused by evolution, that you bow to the herd and turn off your thinking, and I have already described the two operational modes of the brain.
And then we're back to another topic of my blog, namely the criticism against Holocaust museums, which always show the symbolism and the incidents, but never the methods - because there is too much interest in using these methods again. This entire spasm with uniforms, flags, swastika, and all the other bells and whistles serves to activate the herd mode in the brain which turns off reason and turns on conformity. And today, they are using not the same, but similar, similarly appearing methods again. That is why sociologists always come out of university dumber than when they came in. They're not there to learn, they're there to get their brains reprogrammed to herd mode. Like in gender studies.
We were transformed from an educated state to a giant conformity machine.
And "basic rights" are now what they are in socialism. You are to obey, to shut your mouth, and to vote for the system.
You are to conform.
Or else, the conformity police comes.
2024-11-24 Update: Added another bespoke translation, same topic and same author. Original source 2 [A]
Is the entire legal system of Germany collapsing right now?
I can't help but get that impression right now.
Because of
- what I am personally experiencing in courts right now,
- what readers - including lawyers and police officers - are writing to me,
- what I am seeing in social media and the last critical media.
- incredible incompetence among lawyers, even judges, down to a layman's level,
- hopeless overburden and flooding with criminal cases, many are politically orchestrated such as asylum law or the insult avalanche,
- inner resignation with whatever-attitude and not even working to rule,
- nobody cares about laws or legal verdicts anymore,
- especially in the political area you can see that everybody is rushing to fill up their bags and they are certain that they don't have to fear criminal prosecution or liability,
- epidemic outgrowths of corruption, politically arbitrary decisions, "law" just as rhetoric for the left-wing and against the right-wing, only for mainstream and the government,
- inversion of constitutional right, the state uses constitutional rights against the citizens,
- chaos, nothing is working anymore. You don't get justice anymore, only payment bills,
- and all of that is no longer covert, but open, ostentatious, blatant.
As if there was a very big regime change from the - at least alleged - state of law and order to an ideological state.
If you want to know how they were able to do it in the GDR or 1933 or the many other situations: Look at the courts. For example, the many home searches for petty reasons or even without any reason.
There are no constitutional rights anymore. But now you can still watch as they get crushed.
The rant of a lawyer about lawyers
Very similar to what I have been writing about for years.For a long time I've been writing that we in Germany have an inversion of basic rights. Originally, the basic rights are defensive rights of the citizens against the state, more precisely, the three pillars of government. The constitution also can't really bind the citizens, because the citizens, the voters, the people are the sovereign, the legislator of the constitution which binds the pillars of government.
But for many years, we are witnessing that everything is going topsy-turvy, that the constitution is redefined as a law to protect an ideology and an entitlement to services and desisting for the state, more precisely, certain parties, against the citizen, an exact inversion.
From what I see, there are two general trains of motivation that get lawyers to that point. I'll call them the direct and indirect, or better maybe, active and passive corruption:
- There are plenty of judges, prosecutors etc. who I'd call directly or actively corrupt, because they are simply thoroughly corrupt as characters, because they are the kind of person who abuses power or simply takes no issue with abusing every position in favor of ideology.
- And there are plenty of those that I would call indirectly, remotely, or passively corrupt, because they don't positively wish for it, but they have no choice but to be corrupt because they simply lack the competence and ability to act righteously. They cannot act and decide in adherence to the law because they don't know what law is. Thus they would appear as obviously incompetent.
That is why they use the replacement conformity method of corruption, because then they are back in a conformity pattern, feel as if they are conforming to rules, and because they stop being attacked or criticized, because it looks plausible when they break the law, and that looks superior to many. If you break the law because you are obviously too dumb to act righteously, you're left a fool. But if you break the law and look like you're doing it out of political obedience, you stand there as a good comrade and rest easy that you won't be attacked.
Equality is the rise of the incompetents, and incompetence always leads to corruption as a replacement conformity. Every socialist system is or always becomes corrupt.
[translation, posts by Prometheus @taxthug:
For >2 years, I have been prophesying that my lawyer colleagues reinterpret the constitution away from defensive rights and towards secondary entitlement rights.
In this time, I have come across incredible lack of knowledge.
Fundamentals of legal philosophy, basic law theory are already hardly present as topics that these people ever heard of. The threefold divide between defensive rights, entitlement rights, and participation rights is unknown. Words like democracy and rule of law are being used synonymously, usually to describe the current system of government, without any value- or principle-based thought. There is no comparing of what you see [and what the principles say], no checking the criteria.
Currently ruling system = democracy.
What happens in that system = good.
Other systems = undemocratic.
Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, de Tocqueville, Montesqieu and their work are completely unknown.
People who graduated with full honors are not familiar with the basics of proportionality checking.
In almost every discussion, there is a disgusting, fascist-seeming law positivism.
The paternalist state is not being recognized as one, if even criticized for it.
From every pore, these lawyers are oozing of subservience to authority, obedience, degradation.
The few exceptions are almost completely silent. From the beginning, they stood alone for the most part. The pressure from clients, partners, colleague was enormous, almost as if it was by design.
Lawyers who you'd find very capable reacted like scared, irrational bunnies. Forgot their legal tools and didn't question anything. First they waited for commands by the politics, then concrete instructions in the media.
These people seemed like incapable children who were searching for their parents, looking for help. Incapable of making independent decisions.
With this context, the #JudgmentOfShame is merely the logical consequence of this overwhelmingly incompetent caste of lawyers.
The legal education system has created an army of conformist executive lawyers and subsumption machines.
The layman may not like it: You can't expect anything from lawyers (anymore)!
Of course I am explicitly excepting the well-known freedom fighters like @jeha2019, @nhaerting, @Gieslerlris and @SylK1966. I admire the commitment and strength of character. But when it comes to #BigLaw, the majority of lawyers is completely lost.
(translation of the rant over, back to the normal text)]
What "Prometheus" is describing here is exactly the herd mechanism in the brain: conformity with the system in power. You could maybe even think of a kind of Stockholm syndrome. Maybe that's caused by evolution, that you bow to the herd and turn off your thinking, and I have already described the two operational modes of the brain.
And then we're back to another topic of my blog, namely the criticism against Holocaust museums, which always show the symbolism and the incidents, but never the methods - because there is too much interest in using these methods again. This entire spasm with uniforms, flags, swastika, and all the other bells and whistles serves to activate the herd mode in the brain which turns off reason and turns on conformity. And today, they are using not the same, but similar, similarly appearing methods again. That is why sociologists always come out of university dumber than when they came in. They're not there to learn, they're there to get their brains reprogrammed to herd mode. Like in gender studies.
We were transformed from an educated state to a giant conformity machine.
And "basic rights" are now what they are in socialism. You are to obey, to shut your mouth, and to vote for the system.
You are to conform.
Or else, the conformity police comes.
Last edited:
