Translation by yours truly. Original source [A]
Unfortunately, again without a source and date citation, but I just lost it from this:
[translation of the video clip:
"Should the AfD be prohibited? I find it a bit sad that we didn't manage to be convincing as a democracy, that we didn't manage to include everybody as a society, in the sense of: Look, this is what a free order can do. Look, this is our country which offers so many freedoms, which has so much tolerance, which offers so much diversity, and I would have really wished that it sufficed to convince people that democracy is a good form of statecraft. Now I kinda don't know anymore because, that the AfD wants a different kind of society and doesn't play by the rules, we know that. As journalists, we have analyzed everything, we have uncovered everything, we informed, we listened to people, we tried to investigate why people vote AfD. We tried to understand what needs are behind it. But we also showed that this party wants a different country. Something else is going to come out of it, it's no longer about a country like we have now, where people can move freely, and thus I wonder if we shouldn't have pull out the final card that is in the constitution to protect us from fascists, namely prohibit the party, or at least start a prohibition procedure. Because, at the end: There is a party, which is voted for democratically, but it doesn't play by the democratic rules, you could see that recently in the Thuringia state parliament. And then it's like in a sandbox. There's 70% playing nice things, and then always someone comes and destroys it, and then there's the question of when you have to say No, you're not allowed to play anymore. And therefore I believe that we have to get to the point to at least try to prohibit this party. But it's just my opinion. What's yours?"]
Tolerance ... diversity ... democracy ... as a reminder: She's in the NDR [North German public broadcasting], and it was the NDR where I witnessed that, in the back room, journalists were drilled that "hate" is not an opinion and therefore doesn't enjoy or is entitled to freedom of speech, and on my question, what is "hate", how is it defined and who defines it, I got the answer that the "discourse" determines that dynamically on a daily basis. So, as a result, the only things entitled to freedom of speech are what fit the narrative.
Either she's deceiving people or she doesn't grasp the fact that two contradictory, mutually exclusive terms "democracy" are floating around:
Reschke keeps on showing that she considers herself a kind of elite which is supposed to, able to, and allowed to tell the people what they are supposed to believe, like the kindergarten caretaker does to the kids. She considers her self some kind of nurturing mom and everyone else as her kids, because she believes, as she once said in an interview, that Hugh Greene personally assigned her with a permanent holy duty and equipment to educate the Germans and that they'd have to put him on a pedestal as if he was invincible. Who is Hugh Greene?
Greene was an officer of the British air force, responsible for the interrogation of crashed German pilots, and BBC propagandist for the German-speaking British public broadcasting for Germany in the war (these stations which you clandestinely tuned in to and then got shot if you got caught).
That means that they brag about acting according to Hugh Greene's behest, but are already violating his stance on political independence. They can't even do that right.
Nevertheless, Reschke believes to be some kind of Batwoman who's hunting Nazis under Hugh Greene's order, as if she didn't realize yet that we're not under occupational law anymore and "democracy" means that we're doing the voting.
What she doesn't understand either is - totally regardless if she is capable of it - that, if someone wants to raise and educate others, they have to be smarter than those others. So far, I have yet to hear a single intellectually remarkable word coming from her, everything she says is on some kind of housewife and mom mentality level, as if she was raising her kids. Wikipedia:
Political science with history and social psychology. Claptrap without any substance. And she's acting like mom at a child's birthday. That political science education couldn't have been worth much if she can't tell the difference between citizen democracy and socialism - or doesn't want to. No honest person would use the term "democracy" in its socialist meaning, as the opposite of democracy - because socialism and communism are neither democratic nor free, and it is a typical propaganda term.
Like I said in the affidavit for the state parliament of Saxony on the raising of the public broadcasting fees, according to my judgment, she has not only failed to understand the public broadcasting rules and the duties and responsibilities, but she doesn't even know them. What she's doing is violating the public broadcasting rules and is thus also unconstitutional. Either she doesn't understand it or she doesn't care.
Reschke is - like Georg Restle or Claus Kleber - a typical case, a classic example of television journalists who didn't understand the difference between press and public broadcasting (or intentionally ignore it) and, with their kind of journalism, shouldn't even be allowed to work in public broadcasting, but belong to the press which can go bankrupt, but they get paid through mandatory fees.
And now she is complaining that
The crux is that the AfD is the last resort for those who want to have a citizen democracy with free elections, and the AfD is thus of course standing for those who want a "different kind of society" - than Reschke and her consorts, namely not a socialist one, but a citizen-democratic one, as was actually intended in the German constitution. And of course they don't play by the "rules" of Reschke, namely the dictatorship of a Leninist party as the warden of the proletariat with public broadcasting as its propaganda mouthpiece.
No.
These people have never listened to anybody. They can't, because they believe to possess the uncontrovertible superior truth, according to which everybody else needs to be measured by. The people only listen to others for two reasons:
I have seen this again and again, and even tried - there's usually an audience Q&A - and there's even Youtube videos of the NDR conferences where you can see me with questions. As soon as you say something they don't like to hear, someone comes and takes away your microphone. And even when the conference was online because of covid, you immediately got denounced and kicked out.
These people think of themselves as the great interviewers, but in their entire life they haven't learned to listen to anybody. This is all like playing with puppets. It's just about making it look like listening, but they are in control of what happens.
Nonsense. Wrong. Lie.
Because, first, it's not hard to find that out, the people are saying and writing about it in social media.
And, secondly, they work to prevent it. I've described it, I have been there in the NDR back room: "Hate is not an opinion and therefore must not be subject to freedom of speech, it is to be deleted and filtered. The relevant discourse decides on what is hate."
What is this bullshit supposed to be?
First they call everything that deviates from the mainstream "hate" and delete it and then they claim "We tried to investigate..."
How dishonest can you be? How stupid can you be? Are dishonesty and stupidity in themselves sufficient for this or do you need to have both?
And are the actions and programs of the NDR in general and of Reschke especially not enough of a reason to vote against SPD, Greens, CDU? I've written it often enough: There is no move towards the right wing. There is an exodus from the left wing. You don't become right wing through right-wingers, but through left-wingers.
Example: Women's quota and gender language.
If you tell them that you don't want that, they scream about hate and sexism, Nazis and right-wing extremism and so on, but don't understand that this is a reason for how you vote in the booth. She says "we tried to investigate..." but doesn't understand it if it's hitting her in the face.
I've witnessed it myself, also on one of those NDR conferences, how they were rampaging like lunatics, women's quota, women's quota, women's quota, in the editorial teams and everywhere, and Rainer Brüderle (back then after the Dirndl scandal) was an "old fart", as are white men in general. Harpies, I thought I was in a mixture of a mental asylum and a witch dance ceremony. They don't notice that they and their lunacy are the reason why the people are voting against SPD, Green, CDU.
And then she says "we tried to investigate...". Instead of a camera, they should put a mirror in front of her.
Try to tell those Tagesschau people - also in the NDR - that the gender pay gap, which they have been citing for years in the Tagesschau shows, doesn't exist, can't be proven through evidence. Doesn't work. They are completely stuck in their ideology.
If you had tried to tell them 48 hours ago that the USA was going to vote for Trump - they would have dismissed you as a right-wing loon. There was a line and there must be no deviation from it. What doesn't fit doesn't exist. End of discussion.
Beside the point that the phrasing sounds like they are a SPD and Green institution: That too is complete horseshit. For years, they have destroyed everybody who said anything against women's aid, wokeness, gender language.
And for years, they were too arrogant to listen to anybody. Back then, they were certain to have the iron majority and not having to listen to anybody. Only since the AfD is so strong that it's not sufficient to make left-wing coalitions, now they suddenly come and talk about listening - also because they notice that nobody is listening to them.
Oh dear, how dumb.
That is the entire idea of an election. The purpose. That you vote for what you want to have, which is the outcome. That is democracy.
Reschke - the entire public broadcasting apparatus - wants pseudo elections instead: You may vote among SPD, Green, and CDU, but only as long as and as far as you always get the same result, so it effectively doesn't matter what you vote for. Voting yes, but only as long as it doesn't make a difference. As if the parties are just different brand names from the same factory.
She's blathering about democracy - but doesn't want to give people the possibility to vote for changes. Actually you're only allowed to confirm the status quo, nothing else. Just like under Honecker.
And she's lucky that Hugh Greene is dead already. He would have probably shot her for that.
And she's supposed to have a degree in political science?
She should demand a refund for her tuition fees.
Because, according to the constitution, this is a country in which Germans can move freely.
The attempt to turn this into a country in which everyone can move freely has turned it into a country in which Germans and migrants can no longer move freely. In Berlin, we've having a shootout almost every day, countless stabbings. The most important and close subway line to me would be the U8. That is considered the worst subway line in Berlin because of the crime rate. Violence, drugs, theft, full of shit [literally], everything's possible. Meanwhile, they've started trying to improve. They threw out the bums and classical music is playing at the train stations. I can't move freely in Berlin anymore. Not at night. Not in some no-go areas. And I'm not even a woman and don't have any kids. It's not just I who is feeling this way: Even professional photographers messaged me that they don't dare to take out the big camera outside, because they get robbed. If you look at your phone at the Berlin Christmas market, it can happen that a civil policeman warns you to better put it away so that it doesn't get ripped from your hand and stolen.
Well, the NDR is in Hamburg - but is it better there? Recently, they were discussing if women can still go to the Jungfernstieg boulevard.
And then Reschke hits us with
And then she asks:
First, you should leave that to those who have read and understood the constitution and haven't just heard the name somewhere. Especially not those who don't even know and understand the public broadcasting laws that they have to abide by.
Before that woman starts waving around the biggest constitution bat, she should first sit down and try to understand her own duties and obligations. That would already be too much of her.
Second, and I repeat it, she should get a refund for her tuition fees. Because you need to be very uninformed about politology to not notice that they are acting in a fascist manner and blatantly violating the constitution.
That woman apparently believes that the constitution is some kind of anchor for socialism. It isn't.
She wants to get rid of every option to vote in contradiction to the socialist party line and want something substantially different, and thinks that is "democratic".
And what could you see there?
And what rules is she talking about?
If I look at the state parliaments and the federal parliament, it's the other parties who blatantly violate the democratic "rules". It's a completely rigged comedy what they're doing there.
As a reminder: The AfD has yet to make a single unconstitutional law. But the list of unconstitutional laws made by SPD, CDU, Greens is long. According to that measure, the SPD would be the most unconstitutional party. And they also tried to change voting laws and basic structures in order to stay in power, like that attempt to vote for representatives only as a pair - man, woman - or the Green Party's women statute according to which men are only allowed to talk when a woman has spoken. If there was a prohibition of parties, then SPD and Green Party should be the first on the chopping block.
No.
There are some people sitting and claiming the sandbox as their own, because they claim "we are more", and say it's their sand. Their money. Their power. Their positions. Their public broadcasting.
And then others come and also want to play, and the ones who sit in the sandbox don't let them play. And they call that "firewall".
And the 70%, they're not playing "nice things", but leftist mafia, they're dividing the loot among themselves and enforce their rules, according to which they always win.
In the sandbox, mom would come and slap them: "Let the others play too!"
To someone who's never been allowed to play?
Isn't it rather the case that it's about a public sandbox which is being occupied by a 70% gang which claims it's their sandbox and their sand, and only they're allowed to play and dictate the games? And if you're not part of their gang, you're not allowed to play? Like a protection racket? Who are distributing the nice jobs with the 6-figure wages like in public broadcasting?
Which are now facing the problem that the number of people who are not allowed to play is increasing more and more, and therefore they are losing the position of the stronger party and are in danger of losing their street gang dominance over the sandbox?
I believe that someone like Reschke has no place in publicly financed broadcasting. Especially not in an executive position.
You should be aware of that (like I described earlier) that public broadcasting is doing mass agitation against the free democratic order, and that a central propagandistic tool is the double meaning of the term "democracy", and they use the socialist meaning to agitate against the genuine citizen democracy.
The NDR, as I have seen it myself and reported on it, is an unconstitutional organization.
Because it is a socialist organization.
And Hugh Greene didn't want this at all. He wanted to prevent precisely this, that public broadcasting - again - becomes a propaganda tool of the powers-that-be and sandbox occupiers, because that is what they just fought a war against.
And as little "democratic" they are in the genuine sense, as little are you going to see them ever listening to anyone except for themselves. Because they are a broadcasting facility. Not a listening facility. You are the audience, you are - according to their wish - supposed to listen to them.
But exactly this is forbidden by the public broadcasting laws.
The claptrap of Anja Reschke
On the universal misery of publicly funded broadcasting.Unfortunately, again without a source and date citation, but I just lost it from this:
#PublicBroadcastingCanGoAway #ReschkeCanGoAway #OnlyAfD
Reschke with her comment on the AfD prohibition.
Democracy also means to accept and respect the will of the voters without hate and agitation.
If you can't do this, you're not a democrat.
— AldousHuxley (@AHuxley1963) November 6, 2024
[translation of the video clip:
"Should the AfD be prohibited? I find it a bit sad that we didn't manage to be convincing as a democracy, that we didn't manage to include everybody as a society, in the sense of: Look, this is what a free order can do. Look, this is our country which offers so many freedoms, which has so much tolerance, which offers so much diversity, and I would have really wished that it sufficed to convince people that democracy is a good form of statecraft. Now I kinda don't know anymore because, that the AfD wants a different kind of society and doesn't play by the rules, we know that. As journalists, we have analyzed everything, we have uncovered everything, we informed, we listened to people, we tried to investigate why people vote AfD. We tried to understand what needs are behind it. But we also showed that this party wants a different country. Something else is going to come out of it, it's no longer about a country like we have now, where people can move freely, and thus I wonder if we shouldn't have pull out the final card that is in the constitution to protect us from fascists, namely prohibit the party, or at least start a prohibition procedure. Because, at the end: There is a party, which is voted for democratically, but it doesn't play by the democratic rules, you could see that recently in the Thuringia state parliament. And then it's like in a sandbox. There's 70% playing nice things, and then always someone comes and destroys it, and then there's the question of when you have to say No, you're not allowed to play anymore. And therefore I believe that we have to get to the point to at least try to prohibit this party. But it's just my opinion. What's yours?"]
Tolerance ... diversity ... democracy ... as a reminder: She's in the NDR [North German public broadcasting], and it was the NDR where I witnessed that, in the back room, journalists were drilled that "hate" is not an opinion and therefore doesn't enjoy or is entitled to freedom of speech, and on my question, what is "hate", how is it defined and who defines it, I got the answer that the "discourse" determines that dynamically on a daily basis. So, as a result, the only things entitled to freedom of speech are what fit the narrative.
Either she's deceiving people or she doesn't grasp the fact that two contradictory, mutually exclusive terms "democracy" are floating around:
- The genuine term invented by the Greeks as defined in the word, namely citizen democracy, in which the people are ruling, and all state power is coming from the people, on which our constitution is based.
- The socialist communist term (like in "GDR, German Democratic Republic"), the propaganda term coined and spread by communists like Rosa Luxemburg, which goes in the opposite direction and insinuates that the proletariat is by itself too stupid to know what's good for it, and the bourgeoisie is too evil to let them do their thing, and that is why a sole ruling central party of Leninist design is to use propaganda to dictate what people are supposed to want, opine, think, and say.
Exactly the opposite of the genuine term and exactly what our constitution and fundamental rights should be protecting us from.
Reschke keeps on showing that she considers herself a kind of elite which is supposed to, able to, and allowed to tell the people what they are supposed to believe, like the kindergarten caretaker does to the kids. She considers her self some kind of nurturing mom and everyone else as her kids, because she believes, as she once said in an interview, that Hugh Greene personally assigned her with a permanent holy duty and equipment to educate the Germans and that they'd have to put him on a pedestal as if he was invincible. Who is Hugh Greene?
Sir Hugh Carleton Greene KCMG OBE (* 15. November 1910 in Berkhamsted (Hertfordshire); † 19. February 1987 in London) was a British journalist. After 1945, on behest of the British occupying forces, Hugh Greene was the organizer of the North West German Public Broadcasting (NWDR) and later the general director of the BBC until 31. March 1969.
Greene was an officer of the British air force, responsible for the interrogation of crashed German pilots, and BBC propagandist for the German-speaking British public broadcasting for Germany in the war (these stations which you clandestinely tuned in to and then got shot if you got caught).
Thus, Hugh Greene built up a kind of BBC for Germany. After the occupation of Germany, the mood among the Allies changed, they wanted to create a liberal and democratic society in Germany. In December 1945, Alex Bishop was tasked to built up intelligence services, media, broadcasting, and film. For the public broadcasting, he created the NWDR after the BBC inland service with its broadcasting houses in Hamburg and Cologne and tasked W. A. Palmer with the organization. However, that man was unable to convince the German employees, after which Bishop asked BBC general director Sir William Haley in writing for a replacement. The latter suggested Hugh Greene.
In October 1946, Greene joined as an organizer and had the plan to transform the NWDR to a public broadcasting institution which is supposed to be independent from commercial interests and political pressure from the government, centralized and financed through public spending. He was unable to achieve a complete independence of the public broadcasting from political parties. Just like in the BBC's tradition, the foundation should consists of independence, impartiality, and tolerance. Through Greene's influence, the NWDR became a medium of political, cultural, and liberal democratic education with tolerance and ability to compromise. As soon as the political parties were allowed in Germany, there were disputes around the control of public broadcasting.
The political parties were out for votes. According to Greene's design, public broadcasting was not to become a mouthpiece of the parties, but the Germans themselves should be allowed to inform themselves about perspectives, virtues, and ideals. After Adolf Grimme (SPD) was voted as as general director and Heinrich-Georg Raskop (CDU) was voted into the managing council, Greene handed over the NWDR to his successors on 15. November 1948:
In my speech in the big concert hall, where I first adressed the NWDR staff more than two years ago for the first time, I emphasized - again, neither for the first nor the last time - that the publicly financed broadcasting must be as far removed from government and party political coercion as possible... When I came down from the stage, Mr. Brauer, the mayor of Hamburg, angrily told me quietly, but in an unmissably hostile way: "You are not going to achieve your goal, Mr. Greene. You are not going to achieve it."
That means that they brag about acting according to Hugh Greene's behest, but are already violating his stance on political independence. They can't even do that right.
Nevertheless, Reschke believes to be some kind of Batwoman who's hunting Nazis under Hugh Greene's order, as if she didn't realize yet that we're not under occupational law anymore and "democracy" means that we're doing the voting.
What she doesn't understand either is - totally regardless if she is capable of it - that, if someone wants to raise and educate others, they have to be smarter than those others. So far, I have yet to hear a single intellectually remarkable word coming from her, everything she says is on some kind of housewife and mom mentality level, as if she was raising her kids. Wikipedia:
Next to her study of political science with the side subjects history and social psychology at the Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, which she concluded with the Magister artium in 1998,[1] she worked as an independent journalist at the radio station Antenne Bayern from 1993 for five years. From 1998 to 2000, she was an apprentice at the NDR.
Political science with history and social psychology. Claptrap without any substance. And she's acting like mom at a child's birthday. That political science education couldn't have been worth much if she can't tell the difference between citizen democracy and socialism - or doesn't want to. No honest person would use the term "democracy" in its socialist meaning, as the opposite of democracy - because socialism and communism are neither democratic nor free, and it is a typical propaganda term.
Like I said in the affidavit for the state parliament of Saxony on the raising of the public broadcasting fees, according to my judgment, she has not only failed to understand the public broadcasting rules and the duties and responsibilities, but she doesn't even know them. What she's doing is violating the public broadcasting rules and is thus also unconstitutional. Either she doesn't understand it or she doesn't care.
Reschke is - like Georg Restle or Claus Kleber - a typical case, a classic example of television journalists who didn't understand the difference between press and public broadcasting (or intentionally ignore it) and, with their kind of journalism, shouldn't even be allowed to work in public broadcasting, but belong to the press which can go bankrupt, but they get paid through mandatory fees.
And now she is complaining that
the AfD wants a different kind of society and doesn't play by the rules
The crux is that the AfD is the last resort for those who want to have a citizen democracy with free elections, and the AfD is thus of course standing for those who want a "different kind of society" - than Reschke and her consorts, namely not a socialist one, but a citizen-democratic one, as was actually intended in the German constitution. And of course they don't play by the "rules" of Reschke, namely the dictatorship of a Leninist party as the warden of the proletariat with public broadcasting as its propaganda mouthpiece.
As journalists, we have analyzed everything
- No.
- What they have "analyzed", they didn't understand, and the result was wrong.
- They can't even analyze because they never learned how, where should they have, and they're mistaking their leftist claptrap according to "critical theory" (Frankfurt School) for "analysis", just like they consider themselves "fact checkers" and don't know what facts are.
Those people are suffering from a grotesque self-aggrandizement and don't notice how uneducated and intellectually insufficient they really are, because they're living in their television bubble and the camera is a one-way street. - They don't want to "analyze" in the first place. Those are leftists, molded red or green, followers of speech act theory and the entire left-wing nonsense. Not only can't they analyze, they don't want to, because they are following an ideology according to which they are supposed to present what is supposed to be, and not what actually is. They consider it their duty - I remind you of the discussion around the women's quota in Tatort crime series - to show the world and to enforce a narrative as it is supposed to be according to their ideal, not what it is. And that is completely incompatible with the duties of public broadcasting and the term "analysis". And then comes the fundamental stance of "attitude journalism", basically rejecting to be neutral and objective from the ouset, mixing reporting and activism. In vulgar terms: Lying.
When they talk about "analysis", it's like when they're talking about "democracy": Propaganda claptrap that doesn't survive a closer look.
we listened to people
No.
These people have never listened to anybody. They can't, because they believe to possess the uncontrovertible superior truth, according to which everybody else needs to be measured by. The people only listen to others for two reasons:
- he says what they want to hear from him,
- or to drag him through the dirt as a prototypical idiot or Nazi, as a bad example
I have seen this again and again, and even tried - there's usually an audience Q&A - and there's even Youtube videos of the NDR conferences where you can see me with questions. As soon as you say something they don't like to hear, someone comes and takes away your microphone. And even when the conference was online because of covid, you immediately got denounced and kicked out.
These people think of themselves as the great interviewers, but in their entire life they haven't learned to listen to anybody. This is all like playing with puppets. It's just about making it look like listening, but they are in control of what happens.
we tried to investigate why people vote AfD.
Nonsense. Wrong. Lie.
Because, first, it's not hard to find that out, the people are saying and writing about it in social media.
And, secondly, they work to prevent it. I've described it, I have been there in the NDR back room: "Hate is not an opinion and therefore must not be subject to freedom of speech, it is to be deleted and filtered. The relevant discourse decides on what is hate."
What is this bullshit supposed to be?
First they call everything that deviates from the mainstream "hate" and delete it and then they claim "We tried to investigate..."
How dishonest can you be? How stupid can you be? Are dishonesty and stupidity in themselves sufficient for this or do you need to have both?
And are the actions and programs of the NDR in general and of Reschke especially not enough of a reason to vote against SPD, Greens, CDU? I've written it often enough: There is no move towards the right wing. There is an exodus from the left wing. You don't become right wing through right-wingers, but through left-wingers.
Example: Women's quota and gender language.
If you tell them that you don't want that, they scream about hate and sexism, Nazis and right-wing extremism and so on, but don't understand that this is a reason for how you vote in the booth. She says "we tried to investigate..." but doesn't understand it if it's hitting her in the face.
I've witnessed it myself, also on one of those NDR conferences, how they were rampaging like lunatics, women's quota, women's quota, women's quota, in the editorial teams and everywhere, and Rainer Brüderle (back then after the Dirndl scandal) was an "old fart", as are white men in general. Harpies, I thought I was in a mixture of a mental asylum and a witch dance ceremony. They don't notice that they and their lunacy are the reason why the people are voting against SPD, Green, CDU.
And then she says "we tried to investigate...". Instead of a camera, they should put a mirror in front of her.
Try to tell those Tagesschau people - also in the NDR - that the gender pay gap, which they have been citing for years in the Tagesschau shows, doesn't exist, can't be proven through evidence. Doesn't work. They are completely stuck in their ideology.
If you had tried to tell them 48 hours ago that the USA was going to vote for Trump - they would have dismissed you as a right-wing loon. There was a line and there must be no deviation from it. What doesn't fit doesn't exist. End of discussion.
We tried to understand what needs are behind it.
Beside the point that the phrasing sounds like they are a SPD and Green institution: That too is complete horseshit. For years, they have destroyed everybody who said anything against women's aid, wokeness, gender language.
And for years, they were too arrogant to listen to anybody. Back then, they were certain to have the iron majority and not having to listen to anybody. Only since the AfD is so strong that it's not sufficient to make left-wing coalitions, now they suddenly come and talk about listening - also because they notice that nobody is listening to them.
But we also showed that this party wants a different country. Something else is going to come out of it
Oh dear, how dumb.
That is the entire idea of an election. The purpose. That you vote for what you want to have, which is the outcome. That is democracy.
Reschke - the entire public broadcasting apparatus - wants pseudo elections instead: You may vote among SPD, Green, and CDU, but only as long as and as far as you always get the same result, so it effectively doesn't matter what you vote for. Voting yes, but only as long as it doesn't make a difference. As if the parties are just different brand names from the same factory.
She's blathering about democracy - but doesn't want to give people the possibility to vote for changes. Actually you're only allowed to confirm the status quo, nothing else. Just like under Honecker.
And she's lucky that Hugh Greene is dead already. He would have probably shot her for that.
it's no longer about a country like we have now, where people can move freely
And she's supposed to have a degree in political science?
She should demand a refund for her tuition fees.
Because, according to the constitution, this is a country in which Germans can move freely.
The attempt to turn this into a country in which everyone can move freely has turned it into a country in which Germans and migrants can no longer move freely. In Berlin, we've having a shootout almost every day, countless stabbings. The most important and close subway line to me would be the U8. That is considered the worst subway line in Berlin because of the crime rate. Violence, drugs, theft, full of shit [literally], everything's possible. Meanwhile, they've started trying to improve. They threw out the bums and classical music is playing at the train stations. I can't move freely in Berlin anymore. Not at night. Not in some no-go areas. And I'm not even a woman and don't have any kids. It's not just I who is feeling this way: Even professional photographers messaged me that they don't dare to take out the big camera outside, because they get robbed. If you look at your phone at the Berlin Christmas market, it can happen that a civil policeman warns you to better put it away so that it doesn't get ripped from your hand and stolen.
Well, the NDR is in Hamburg - but is it better there? Recently, they were discussing if women can still go to the Jungfernstieg boulevard.
And then Reschke hits us with
it's no longer about a country like we have now, where people can move freely
And then she asks:
and thus I wonder if we shouldn't have pull out the final card that is in the constitution to protect us from fascists, namely prohibit the party
First, you should leave that to those who have read and understood the constitution and haven't just heard the name somewhere. Especially not those who don't even know and understand the public broadcasting laws that they have to abide by.
Before that woman starts waving around the biggest constitution bat, she should first sit down and try to understand her own duties and obligations. That would already be too much of her.
Second, and I repeat it, she should get a refund for her tuition fees. Because you need to be very uninformed about politology to not notice that they are acting in a fascist manner and blatantly violating the constitution.
That woman apparently believes that the constitution is some kind of anchor for socialism. It isn't.
She wants to get rid of every option to vote in contradiction to the socialist party line and want something substantially different, and thinks that is "democratic".
Because, at the end: There is a party, which is voted for democratically, but it doesn't play by the democratic rules, you could see that recently in the Thuringia state parliament.
And what could you see there?
And what rules is she talking about?
If I look at the state parliaments and the federal parliament, it's the other parties who blatantly violate the democratic "rules". It's a completely rigged comedy what they're doing there.
As a reminder: The AfD has yet to make a single unconstitutional law. But the list of unconstitutional laws made by SPD, CDU, Greens is long. According to that measure, the SPD would be the most unconstitutional party. And they also tried to change voting laws and basic structures in order to stay in power, like that attempt to vote for representatives only as a pair - man, woman - or the Green Party's women statute according to which men are only allowed to talk when a woman has spoken. If there was a prohibition of parties, then SPD and Green Party should be the first on the chopping block.
And then it's like in a sandbox. There's 70% playing nice things, and then always someone comes and destroys it
No.
There are some people sitting and claiming the sandbox as their own, because they claim "we are more", and say it's their sand. Their money. Their power. Their positions. Their public broadcasting.
And then others come and also want to play, and the ones who sit in the sandbox don't let them play. And they call that "firewall".
And the 70%, they're not playing "nice things", but leftist mafia, they're dividing the loot among themselves and enforce their rules, according to which they always win.
In the sandbox, mom would come and slap them: "Let the others play too!"
and then there's the question of when you have to say No, you're not allowed to play anymore.
To someone who's never been allowed to play?
Isn't it rather the case that it's about a public sandbox which is being occupied by a 70% gang which claims it's their sandbox and their sand, and only they're allowed to play and dictate the games? And if you're not part of their gang, you're not allowed to play? Like a protection racket? Who are distributing the nice jobs with the 6-figure wages like in public broadcasting?
Which are now facing the problem that the number of people who are not allowed to play is increasing more and more, and therefore they are losing the position of the stronger party and are in danger of losing their street gang dominance over the sandbox?
I believe that someone like Reschke has no place in publicly financed broadcasting. Especially not in an executive position.
You should be aware of that (like I described earlier) that public broadcasting is doing mass agitation against the free democratic order, and that a central propagandistic tool is the double meaning of the term "democracy", and they use the socialist meaning to agitate against the genuine citizen democracy.
The NDR, as I have seen it myself and reported on it, is an unconstitutional organization.
Because it is a socialist organization.
And Hugh Greene didn't want this at all. He wanted to prevent precisely this, that public broadcasting - again - becomes a propaganda tool of the powers-that-be and sandbox occupiers, because that is what they just fought a war against.
And as little "democratic" they are in the genuine sense, as little are you going to see them ever listening to anyone except for themselves. Because they are a broadcasting facility. Not a listening facility. You are the audience, you are - according to their wish - supposed to listen to them.
But exactly this is forbidden by the public broadcasting laws.
