I guess this is just your way of arguing against something: over-exaggerating whatever the other person says. If I say that black pepper is a useful spice, you will argue back that I had said that no food is palatable without black pepper. I never said that Qanon is "pulling the strings." What I was responding to, in fact, was your doubt, that Qanon had any involvement at all. As this news story, as well as others, have proven-- because this is not something that is unknown, such as your example about Trump's Mar-a-lago documents-- Qanon has helped the Reichsbürger movement grow, and the two have become, to quote the article, "very closely intertwined." This is well understood by authorities who have been keeping a close eye on the group, since 2016, and who have known about this particular sub-group, for at least a year. That intertwining, was all I needed to show, in defense of my point, and in defeat of yours. If you want to pretend that we had been arguing something else, that you had, from the start, conceded some Qanon involvement with this, that is your own head trip: but it in no way matches the facts. Do I really need go & quote your posts? *Your own totally tangential comment about my writing "quite a lot" about "irrelevant tangents," could not be a clearer demonstration of the pot calling the clock "black"-- because of the numbers on its face. I said very little, myself, in the post: two short introductory paragraphs, addressing your previous argument, and setting up the argument that the news snips which made up the rest of the post, were about to make. So your characterization of my reply was just plain false, on top of, obviously, not being of central importance to the actual debate. Hence, your charges were a particularly egregious case, of your own projection (seeing as most of what you had written, was misrepresentation). As for Covid being unconnected-- and that was all from the article, not my own words-- this is just, there is no nice way to say, an utterly clueless comment. You really see no connection, between the Covid pandemic, and the growth of conspiracy theory?
Yes, I understand that. You had not specifically made that distinction, in your post but, re-reading it, I suppose it was implied, as you had been speaking about other military personnel, in the prior sentence. So it was my mistake, to think you had been saying that there were no "special op" police forces (akin to American S.W.A.T.-- Special Weapons And Tactics).
While I certainly appreciate the added insight one gets from having boots on the ground, as it were, of your being able to get the view through the eyes of your friends, closer to on site-- nevertheless, one cannot ignore the possible slant of those perspectives. IOW, a person from Germany could have American friends (and I hope that you would not be one of them) who would tell them that our January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol, was vastly exaggerated, a big nothing-bürger. That is the view of some, here, but it is not the majority opinion. And even if the majority opinion-- recognizing that it was no joke-- still might not consider it a serious attempt to prevent the ascension of our legally elected President, that would not necessarily make them correct. National Security people, and others in the know, tend to see the seriousness of January 6th; and the quotes in the news reports, from German experts, suggest that their counterparts, over there, do not take this as lightly as you seem to view it. I guess the question becomes, how close to actual success, does an attempted coup have to come, before some people sit up and take notice?
I have been in a foreign country that was experiencing an insurrection. Believe me, DEF, this 'Jan 6' idiocy was no insurrection! It was a stupid, angry protest that got WAY out of hand. Those who committed actual crimes have been charged and must face the legal consequences for their actions! Good! Let justice prevail!
Covid is irrelevant to Q being part of a Reichsbürger coup attempt. I've already expressed my issues with Q as being related to this coup. In fact, here's my prediction: In less than a week the references to Q will be relegated to Q-like rather than actual Qanon.
No. I heard that his wife would be. It's apparently (and also what the OP says) a mixture of right wing extremists, anti-semitics, Qanon, anti-vax / corona virus deniers. And among all of them just some prince. Germany has a lot of royal nobodies and somebodies. I'm guessing his entire house is among the nobodies and have just a title while need to work for a living etc. It's not like he's a descendant of the king of Prussia who became the Emperor of Germany. You can spot it in their first names. That German emperor was a William, just like that dude from the UK, just like the current king of the Netherlands. They are distant relatives. This prince was just a Heinrich.
OK I don't think I made any claim about what a monarch does, particularly since it doesn't seem to apply to this topic. What claim did I make?
I'm not going back through this thread, but didn't someone say that there were over 12000 members of this group? That's actually a lot of people, and it rivals the likes of some ancient armies. Just think how if it weren't for the larger German government and its intelligence agencies, then this group would have waltzed into power just like their ancient equivalence did. And if the larger governments of our age disintegrate, when the debt bomb finally goes off, then a monarch and his troops could take over the town by the next week.
There is a mistake in your understanding, for which I must at least partly hold myself responsible, for not making this clearer, once the news finally made this clear: not nearly everyone who is part of the Reichsbürger movement, was part of this plot-- only a small subset of the group. Secondly, as long as I'm at it, you'd misremembered the number: it was 21,000-- not 12,000. See post #11: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/germany-coup-plot.606232/#post-1073894348 All that said, you of course make a good point, that if a significant part of this group of people-- who already seem to have a diminished capacity for assessing reality-- were to get behind another plot, like this, the repercussions could be very considerable.
Look -- there's 84,000,000 people in Germany today. Even if it's an accurate figure (and I seriously doubt it), don't get too concerned about 12,000 people who are supposedly willing to put themselves on the line to overthrow the German government! If nothing else, remember that in February of this year, there were 183,638 uniformed personnel in the German military (Bundeswehr). Do you really think that some old delusional 'aristocrat' fart, Heinrich XIII, and a clump of 'followers' are any match for that...?! . "Eigentlich, das glaube ich überhaupt nicht!"
There is a monarchy website founded and maintained by a cellist in a major U.S. symphony orchestra. I met him a few years ago. Unusual individual, but harmless. He makes a decent case for constitutional monarchy -- civil liberties are as protected in the UK and Scandinavia, etc. Of course, the modern American mind can't countenance any political arrangement other than what we have in the USA, and liberals faint at the idea of anyone but Democrats controlling all three branches. The alternative is fascism, see? We are becoming boring as a society. Critics of monarchy often complain that it is undemocratic. But in Western Europe, constitutional monarchy has not stood in the way of democratic, even socialist agendas. On many issues (such as the death penalty), European monarchies are more progressive than the United States. In democracies, whether they are monarchies or republics, it is the views of the people and the decisions of their elected leaders that determine the political climate of a country. It is true that in a monarchy, no commoner can aspire to be king. But in practice, the office of president of a modern republic, with its intimidating financial, personal, and educational requirements, is hardly open to all. And in some ways, republicanism is more exclusive. Presidents of republics are almost always middle-aged males. They tend to be moderately intelligent, moderately good-looking, moderately a lot of things. Monarchy may confine the office of head of state to one family, but it also opens the door to a wider variety of types of people who in a republic may never have been able to get elected due to prejudices no fault of their own. [Monarchs can also be representative of ordinary people in a way that presidents are not since hereditary rulers do not generally possess the extraordinary and sometimes unethical ambition that often sets successful politicians apart from their fellow citizens. http://www.royaltymonarchy.com/
I will try, once more, to illustrate that even an unsuccessful coup, especially one that involved thousands of citizens, is nothing to sneeze at. Let's say the Jan. 6 crowd seized the Capitol, and refused to leave. Do you remember the David Koresh fiasco? Now multiply that by a couple of hundred times, the number of people, and move it from some dump out in the middle of the Texas desert (Waco), to the U.S. Capitol. You still see it as nothing to have a second thought about?
Yes, I do. Get a very high ranking and serious minded military official or two, 200 really, involved in the conspiracy, and then maybe you have reason to be concerned.
Could you explain your point? My own point had not been that these Trumpstone Troops, would take over the government. Yet, having to militarily storm our own Capitol, fighting against thousands of citizens, even if relatively few were armed-- believe it or not-- is not something one typically associates with any successful political system. And your own example, only further makes my point; that is, the way things are going, that scenario is becoming less fantastic, all the time. The mere potential of terrorism, directed against our nation's political representatives, is cause for concern. Even small artillery fire, in any nation's Capitol, detracts from the appearance of the stability of that government, and so its future possibility, is cause for concern. Needing to kill, merely a few dozen citizens, in order to re-establish order, is something that most citizens, would hope could be avoided. Am I making my point, or would a few more examples be helpful?
I understand the case for monarchy, but understanding the case for it doesn't mean I agree with it. Although I'll admit it's come in handy a few times, such as the restoration of the Spanish monarchy in the post Franco era. That doesn't really describe Germany today however.
. Better boring than the (R)adical "fun" of installing an unelected dictator like Trump and taking away basic civil liberties such as abortion.
Ben Bova, the SF author, makes the only good case I've ever seen for monarchism. Given that they are not congenital idiots due to inbreeding they certainly have no lack of training for their job, at the best schools and since birth.
I'm not advocating monarchy! But I think the UK and Scandinavia should keep what they have. The people aren't oppressed.
You know perfectly well what I mean. A rabble of nuts doesn't scare me, and it shouldn't scare anyone else.
It's actually funny that the Jan 6 nuts weren't even trying to establish a monarchy. They actually believed that Trump was elected.
