Bespoke translations by yours truly. Original article [A] by Danisch
On the drivel of the Greens in general and [Vice Chancellor and Minister of the Economy, Green Party] Robert Habeck especially.
They incessantly talk about "just" and "justice":
But what is that supposed to be, this "justice", and why the things that they consider to be just seem very unjust to me, they don't answer.
He says, if we want to know more, we should look into the election program. So let's go take a look [A].
The first thing I notice: There is none. There is only a draft. At least that one is available for download [archived as attachment here].
In there, I find (pdftotext, and transformed spaces to line breaks, then use grep -i just and wc -l) 51 occurrences of words with "just", not counting those that got separated with line breaks.
They want to sell their politics to you as "just" with all force.
Climate justice.
Generational justice.
Needs-based.
Gender-equitable.
Location-just.
Just to animals.
They go against justice gaps and injustice.
And false positives like "Verbandsklagerecht" [right of associations to file lawsuits]. That too contains "gerecht" [just].
Completely beside the facts that the Greens don't know what the word "guarantee" means, and they don't notice (or they and their voters don't care) that everything, especially the last sentence on universities, is self-contradictory because their quota and diversity struggle is not possible with free speech and critical debate: Nowhere do they say what "justice" is actually supposed to be.
The term is highly subjective, volatile, arbitrary, opportunist, context-dependent, corrupt, devoid of content.
But they don't say and write what it's supposed to be, this "justice".
They don't explain it and they also don't say why something is supposed to be good or bad, but they use the methods of sophistry and social sciences by categorizing instead of reasoning, subsume something under terms that are devoid of meaning, but associated positively and negatively, such as "just", "unjust", "racist", "emancipatory", "sexist", or very similarly also "haram" and "halal". You no longer need to reason for anything and the audience no longer asks because nothing of substance is being said, but just one of many trained synonyms for "good" and "bad", for "conformist" and "counter-revolutionary" is being tacked on as a label.
How could you, who would want to, who would ever dare be against the "just cause"?
Because "just" is impossible to criticize, and "unjust" is impossible to be good.
You no longer need to think, Big Brother does it for you.
Actually, it's very simple. By means of herd mechanisms.
First you train a herd behavior that tends towards conformity with the herd. We are the just people, the others are the unjust people. Like the team colors in football. Or Trooping the Colour.
And when Big Brother says that some X is "just", then the - much quicker - herd conformity and friend-enemy-recognition kicks in before the rational part of the brain gets its turn to ask questions or demand evidence. A classic brain hack, that's how the Nazis worked as well. They call it sophistry. The art of speaking in a way that the faster parts of the brain kick in and take over decision making before you get to think. In IT security, you also call that "social engineering" - blindsiding people using their social functions.
They are making you stupid so it works better.
That is why, at school, you no longer learn how to define terms, such as in mathematics. You are not supposed to ask "What is justice, how is it defined?" or "Can you prove that this is just?", as someone with an ordinary mathematical or scientific education would.
That is why you no longer get definitions, but examples. They give you some examples that feel good or bad and that are being tacked on with "just" or "unjust" so that the terms are connected not rationally, but emotionally, and you just store the information that "just" is good and "unjust" is bad, without ever learning what it is.
In reality, it is - just like "democracy" - just about converting positively (pre)connoted terms to your own purposes. Democracy, in terms of its meaning, has been converted to its opposite, is supposed to be the cover word for socialism (just like in the GDR), but to flourish from the fact that "democracy" has a good connotation, even though they do the opposite of it.
And the same thing happens with "just". The term is positively connoted, and they abuse that, even though they have long been doing the opposite of that, they mean a socialist equality of outcome, so unjust things are being fraudulently sold to the people as "just".
And it annoys me to no end that, at the beginning of interviews, talk shows, debates, they don't first ask every participant which of the two polar opposite meanings of the term "democracy" they use. And you would need to do the same thing with "justice".
Get used to asking people what they mean by "democracy" and "justice" when they throw these words around.
Sophistry: What is "justice"?
On the drivel of the Greens in general and [Vice Chancellor and Minister of the Economy, Green Party] Robert Habeck especially.
They incessantly talk about "just" and "justice":
[translation of the video: "Whether your name is Ahmed or Robert, whether you do the job as a man or as a woman, and whether your parents' wallet was always full or your parents had to pinch pennies - in a just society, everybody needs to have the same opportunities. Justice is the foundation of a society that sticks together, and which progresses because it sticks together. And progressing together, advancing together, is what we need in Germany right now. So what do we have to do to make that a reality? We need fair wages on one hand, and a tax system that leaves no gaps for the super rich on the other hand. That individual people shirk their responsibility is not just. Instead, stronger shoulders have to bear more responsibility. In concrete terms, this means for us: with a global billionaire tax, we want to get exceptionally big wealth, that is, the really really rich, to finance our common duties. That is one of a whole lot of proposals with which we want to make our country more just. If you want to know more, just look directly into the program. That's what we stand for. One alliance. One word.]The core of our government program is, among others: justice. As a foundation for a society that sticks together - and makes progress with that cohesion. Together, we want to ensure more justice. We have concrete proposals for this.
— Robert Habeck (@roberthabeck) December 28, 2024
But what is that supposed to be, this "justice", and why the things that they consider to be just seem very unjust to me, they don't answer.
He says, if we want to know more, we should look into the election program. So let's go take a look [A].
The first thing I notice: There is none. There is only a draft. At least that one is available for download [archived as attachment here].
In there, I find (pdftotext, and transformed spaces to line breaks, then use grep -i just and wc -l) 51 occurrences of words with "just", not counting those that got separated with line breaks.
They want to sell their politics to you as "just" with all force.
Climate justice.
Generational justice.
Needs-based.
Gender-equitable.
Location-just.
Just to animals.
They go against justice gaps and injustice.
And false positives like "Verbandsklagerecht" [right of associations to file lawsuits]. That too contains "gerecht" [just].
For socially just climate protection
We build the way towards climate neutrality as a way towards a more just society: Especially people who cannot afford a car benefit from an affordable and comprehensively well-developed public transportation network. Electromobility as well as pedestrian and bicycle traffic contribute to a better quality of air for everybody. Well-insulated homes and climate-neutral heating protect the people from increasing heating bills.
[...]
For a just tax system
Germany is a wealthy country. Many people are doing well. But there are also those who can hardly afford anything beside rent and food. These people have suffered particularly under the inflation of the recent years. And the wealth in our society is distributed unevenly. The richest percent of Germans owns more wealth than 90 percent of society put together.
Especially when it comes to the concentration of very big wealth, there is a big urgency to act in Germany, including in international comparisons. For tackling these large justice gaps, there are the following alternatives: a global billionaire tax, a more just inheritance tax, a just taxation of real estate without loopholes, or a national wealth tax. We want to combine the goals justice, financing the common good, and preserving companies, their investment possibilities, and their jobs.
That is anything but easy, but we finally want to achieve something. That is why we are focusing on the following measures: the effective tackling of exceptions in inheritance tax for extraordinarily large inheritances, active work on the introduction of a global billionaire tax, as well as the closing of further obvious justice gaps in the tax system, especially in the taxation of real estate like share deals and in the gap of taxation from labor income and capital income.
[...]
For a strong higher education and science environment
Universities are centers of education, science, and research. They are the engine of our society by developing ideas and solutions for the big and concrete problems of our times. They are places of free and critical debate and productive clashes without which no scientific progress is possible. Good equipment and working conditions, gender equity and diversity guarantee fair access.
Completely beside the facts that the Greens don't know what the word "guarantee" means, and they don't notice (or they and their voters don't care) that everything, especially the last sentence on universities, is self-contradictory because their quota and diversity struggle is not possible with free speech and critical debate: Nowhere do they say what "justice" is actually supposed to be.
The term is highly subjective, volatile, arbitrary, opportunist, context-dependent, corrupt, devoid of content.
But they don't say and write what it's supposed to be, this "justice".
They don't explain it and they also don't say why something is supposed to be good or bad, but they use the methods of sophistry and social sciences by categorizing instead of reasoning, subsume something under terms that are devoid of meaning, but associated positively and negatively, such as "just", "unjust", "racist", "emancipatory", "sexist", or very similarly also "haram" and "halal". You no longer need to reason for anything and the audience no longer asks because nothing of substance is being said, but just one of many trained synonyms for "good" and "bad", for "conformist" and "counter-revolutionary" is being tacked on as a label.
How could you, who would want to, who would ever dare be against the "just cause"?
Because "just" is impossible to criticize, and "unjust" is impossible to be good.
You no longer need to think, Big Brother does it for you.
How does that work?
Actually, it's very simple. By means of herd mechanisms.
First you train a herd behavior that tends towards conformity with the herd. We are the just people, the others are the unjust people. Like the team colors in football. Or Trooping the Colour.
And when Big Brother says that some X is "just", then the - much quicker - herd conformity and friend-enemy-recognition kicks in before the rational part of the brain gets its turn to ask questions or demand evidence. A classic brain hack, that's how the Nazis worked as well. They call it sophistry. The art of speaking in a way that the faster parts of the brain kick in and take over decision making before you get to think. In IT security, you also call that "social engineering" - blindsiding people using their social functions.
Why they are keeping you stupid
They are making you stupid so it works better.
That is why, at school, you no longer learn how to define terms, such as in mathematics. You are not supposed to ask "What is justice, how is it defined?" or "Can you prove that this is just?", as someone with an ordinary mathematical or scientific education would.
That is why you no longer get definitions, but examples. They give you some examples that feel good or bad and that are being tacked on with "just" or "unjust" so that the terms are connected not rationally, but emotionally, and you just store the information that "just" is good and "unjust" is bad, without ever learning what it is.
In reality, it is - just like "democracy" - just about converting positively (pre)connoted terms to your own purposes. Democracy, in terms of its meaning, has been converted to its opposite, is supposed to be the cover word for socialism (just like in the GDR), but to flourish from the fact that "democracy" has a good connotation, even though they do the opposite of it.
And the same thing happens with "just". The term is positively connoted, and they abuse that, even though they have long been doing the opposite of that, they mean a socialist equality of outcome, so unjust things are being fraudulently sold to the people as "just".
And it annoys me to no end that, at the beginning of interviews, talk shows, debates, they don't first ask every participant which of the two polar opposite meanings of the term "democracy" they use. And you would need to do the same thing with "justice".
Get used to asking people what they mean by "democracy" and "justice" when they throw these words around.
