David’s Blog

As you may have noticed from headlines over the years, quite a number of armed conflicts were and are fuelled by a lack of accountability. In example, Syria under Mr al-Assad. Unarmed people got shot, and torture, and so on, and the Law of Syria seemed to have said: “Whatever.”

In Germany, it was similar from 1933 – 1945. There used to be a system with military courts and such, inspired a lot by Sweden’s regulatory work in such regard. But Nazis perverted also that, saying that any war crime by Wehrmacht on the East front will not be prosecuted at all, while using these courts against civilians. And it wasn’t until 2002, that the German parliament passed a law, reversing the sentences by the Nazi courts.

Nowadays, in a democracy, the parliament is usually meant to keep things in check, with the option of a “no confidence” vote, or impeachment. And officers are expected to know what would constitute an unlawful order, as to refuse such. Additionally, voters have the option every few years to elect someone else.

That usually works quite well. But, when such a parliament is all on board, with making non-white children cry, by tearing their non-US citizen mothers away, in the name of making the U.S. secure, while handing out free passes to like members of the club – the president could be beating up a child in front of live TV, and the GOP would perhaps cheer it on.

At least in theory, there is a court, to handle cases, that might arise from violation of civil rights by state actors. And sure, cool stuff. But that usually takes time, and the court isn’t necessarily legally able to stop a campaign, and just dealing with individual cases afterwards. And then there is the issue that a court just gets ignored, like the one that said in 1932 that Otto Braun is still Prime Minister of Prussia. Or there is even stuff, like the sanctions for the staff of the International Criminal Court.

---

Thus, when assuming that among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches is at least someone sane, how to ensure, in a constitutional state, that sanity prevails? In terms of “game rules” given by a constitution, it is quite easy. But when the guy in charge of the military is not much into reading and stuff, and with all the officers like: “For our glorious leader, we would give our lives.” – what then?

Personally, I am a fan of a somewhat interwoven state structure. In example, next constitution of Prussia. One option is a basic structure, where the head of state is also the so-called Oberbefehlshaber, that is, the head of military, keeping that stuff away from parliament, where agendas sometimes change like the weather, while certain issues require a lot of consistency (even if there is no voters to be gained by doing it proper).

And in this example, I am a fan of simply diluting stuff a little bit. Like, the entirety of the military doesn’t need to be under one command per se, to begin with. Meaning, that parliament could still have minister of Landwehr matters, which is about directly defending country, while the head of state has a few troops dedicated to supporting allies. This would be a sort of internal balance of power in quite physical terms, where the head of state wouldn’t have enough staff to establish their own military government with own policing. And to not let get things even as far, also simple measures, such as parliament as the one sending the money for the military, with the accounts at a bank, that freezes these accounts, when a specific court of law says so.

That may not sound much. But just meaning to show, that a system of “one nation under one leader” is lacklustre in various aspects, in particular in organisational regards – and with proper care, it is possible to have at least some mechanisms in place, for things to be dealt with internally, before turning into yet another war with millions of deaths while a few 70+ year olds seem to be having the time of their life running such shows.

“Security” – a word often used, to justify whichever means. For example, the holocaust, in the name of protecting the Aryan race (that doesn’t include Slaws by the way – which I am mentioning as a number of persons seems to be completely unaware of Generalplan Ost, and instead still believe what Nazis fed to other countries, such as about a like “European brotherhood”, while the actual intentions were multiple genocides).

But leaving aside the propaganda ministries, what does “security” actually mean?

To me personally, it is foremostly about protecting civilians from bodily harm. That includes protection against crime, but also pertains to issues about regulations, so that a chemical tank, like the one in California, doesn’t blow up into anyone’s face, nor cases like the Grenfell Tower fire, after the UK government relaxed all them ever so obnoxious rules, for sake of someone’s profit.

At this point, many readers may agree, that it sure is nice to be able to take a walk (or at least to imagine it), without being attacked by a predator, or nationalist seeking to ethnically cleanse the world, or a communist for daring to have the time to not be working a factory line, or by one of the ISIS recruits, who take revenge for the big ISIS lords not getting to live ever happily after with sex slaves, or simply by some drunkard or robbers.

Beyond this point, paths seem to diverge somewhat though. In example, China. Over there, it is a lot of cameras, even with a points system, when someone is recorded dropping litter, and so on – something I generally describe as “nanny state”.

Over here in Berlin, such an approach is usually frowned upon. In particular due to direct experiences with totalitarian regimes, such as the one by Nazis, and also the one by Stalinists, running an entire country like a military camp, such is considered to be contradicting ideas about especially civilians actually having human rights, such as not being tortured as i.e. Dilawar of Yakubi was.

Myself, I certainly agree that it is quite ridiculous, for a state to act as if big protector, but not even get the basics right, where the “big protector” is supposed to save people from torture, and not be the one doing it. In that context, I am a huge fan of them like “checks and balances”. Where I don’t agree with parts of the political spectrum though, is about taking a laid-back approach, nor to use serious matters as pretext for some political agenda, such as in Germany about deporting people in the name of crime fighting (with EU parliament even supporting camps like in Uganda, for apparently entire nationalities to be transferred to), and no word about the other around 90% of perpetrators with German citizenship.

And what I like instead is simply: professional. And that is not just about repression, such as catching perpetrators of politically motivated arson without relying on torture to gain supposed intel, but also about politics.

---

As example, see the protests with Palestinian flags, such as the one in the photo from Hamburg. These protests sometimes come with a scuffle, such as when someone is getting arrested for shouting “From the river to the sea…”, that is considered like a call sign with Hamas, even if the shouter may have wanted to finish the sentence, e.g. with “…is where also Prussia has an Existenzrecht at”. In Germany, police is not allowed to drop a case, only state prosecutors can do that, like dismiss a criminal charge, without bringing it to court.

In my view, that’s a waste of workhours, because if politics were to make an effort, then there’d be more likely talk at a table, instead of people shouting on the street. And just like that, police can do some actual policing, that isn’t about covering for some political agenda of not talking to some Stadtbild over there.

Similarly, theft of food items. One wouldn’t think it, considering Germany being such a huge economy. But some millionaires moving their money around, that doesn’t mean that everyone in Germany has a financial income, to pay for food with. About a third of all crime in Germany, is theft, and shop theft is about a fifth of that – so it does make up quite a number in the crime statistics, and often it is EU citizens who are doing it.

As is, that means a lot of workhours for police and courts, for something that should be covered by proper social politics. That may not be popular with them billionaires, because all that money spent on social security and stuff, it is not money that they get to hoard. But what use is it to all them nations, when their leaders spend in case of U.S. even hundreds of billions of money on weapons and stuff, in the name of protecting the nation, while a large part of the population doesn’t even have a proper roof over the head, and apparently just left to wither away.

Once again, with a bit care about these matters even on an EU level, a lot of workhours that can be put to use elsewhere. And already cut the crime rate by up to 10%. Which may be a bold claim, but quite logical.

---

Not everything can be solved by politics though, and in such cases it comes to repression, in terms of catching an arsonist, to prevent further arsons, and so on. And in that regard, while it may not be popular with part of the political spectrum, I am a fan of a few cameras at some of the street intersections. To me it is like, just putting someone there to stand watch, but with technology made easier. And such watch, with certain regulations about it, such as that recorded footage can be accessed only by persons involved with the specific investigation, respectively the persons coordinating the catching of the suspect. By that, it would help to solve criminal cases quite some, and ideally even lead to another reduction of cases in the future.

Already many years ago, I perceived statehood to be a lot about service – and that not per se as “service of a person for their country, such as with military service”, but rather in terms of a “service provider”. And in such context, instead of all them depressing notions, such as: “Every visitor to Germany has to speak German! And now excuse us, while we to go to live in Brussels, without learning any local language.” – my thoughts were more in the lines of things, such as providing Polish truck drivers local traffic news in Polish, and emergency call numbers based on language.

I then went to work for Bosch, in a department handling i.e. eCalls from cars. It was quite interesting how they set it up – as in, when e.g. a German-speaking driver has an accident in France, that the driver talks to someone speaking German, while someone from the company speaking French talks to emergency services in France. But I didn’t find that they were handling it with much care, turning the department into one of them usual call centres, where every agent is covering lines for different companies – let alone develop more. With issues ranging from management pocketing the full Inflationsausgleichsprämie (a payment, that was intended to help low income household during inflation), while us at the bottom of the salary ladder received just a third – and manager snooping on private social media profiles, to look for a reason to retaliate, for having escalated to management outside the department, that over weeks there were instances of wait time for up to half an hour, before calls from Autobahn emergency call boxes were picked up (due to only one person planned for the night shifts, to handle that, and also eCalls from cars – and once they went on break, no one in line). All the way to technical issues, such as that that the position shown for crashed vehicle, was by hundreds of kilometres off. Like, several instances, where rural emergency services e.g. in Bavaria were activated (in Germany that usually mean that a lot of volunteers come in, from the “Freiwillige Feuerwehr), who then went looking for that vehicle, reported to be near some forest or such, while the crash actually happened in Belgium – and a lot of work time in operational roles, spent with making tickets for IT, and months later, still pretty much the usual issues, and even something new inbetween.

So, I then left the company, as the private sector in general seemed to lack finesse in such regards, while lobbying for funds. E.g. all them wrist armbands, that trigger an eCall (to a private company) when detecting that the wearer may fallen down – at least the early generations don’t tell 3D coordinates, meaning that all one gets are geocoordinates to a location that may be a flat in a high-rise house – and if there is no response, totally unclear, what floor the eCall is actually from. And then you have companies calling emergency services, to pretty much just offload this setup, the companies make profit from and even get money via “Pflegeversicherung”, and the emergency services, that are often run by volunteers, are then supposed to handle that case somehow.

But the basic idea still stands, about in particular EU citizen e.g. from France and Poland, not facing a total language barrier, when they are for a short or extended period e.g. in Berlin, and so on.

---

Thus, eventually also needing to pretty much re-do software used in call-centers of rescue services, what I am on about, is a set of international emergency call numbers.

That is talking within Europe, phone number e.g. 505 for English-speaking operator in case of an emergency. And 506 for German, 507 for French, 508 for Spanish, and so on.

In example, Mr Macron may be privately for a visit in Berlin and suffer a medical emergency, such as from food poisoning (with these days, not many hygiene inspections going on). And calling 507, he gets someone speaking French, he can describe the symptoms to in his native tongue. This operator may sit themselves in Berlin, or possibly even in France – and in either case, the operator can stay in line, so that when local rescue services arrive, the operator can help with translation if need be.

Similarly, when it is not an SOS call, but still some help needed, one set of numbers that also has a multi-language support. In example, in Berlin a secondary emergency number these days, is 116117, to make an appointment with a doctor. And in such set, that could be 605 for English, 606 for German, 607 for French, 608 for Spanish, and so on.

And while at it, now when the patient sees the doctor, but there may happen to be a language barrier, it would seem quite practical, if the doctor could just call a number, that provides a translation service. And since the call-center of emergency services would already be staffed with persons handling two-language emergency calls, the staff could also provide translations in these cases.

---

Additionally, it would be nice, if every smartphone were capable to automatically transmit their location in case of an SOS call, as in simply sending an SMS to a number. Some smartphone may not have a built-in GPS receiver. But most do, and therefore the smartphone knows the exact location, which helps to cut response time quite some, and also helps to streamline the emergency response.

Specifically, instead of having to ask where the accident happened, that may sometimes result in a inaccurate description, the talk is directly about what happened. And, if there are several callers from the same place, it shows directly on a map in the call-center of the emergency services.

And as a technical expansion to that, it would be nice if there were a start-up app, that activates when an emergency call is made, to be able to transmit a picture or even video feed (with internet connectivity). Meaning that the emergency operator can ask the caller to hold their phone-camera towards a car crash, and the operator can see the scene of the accident, without the caller needing to push any button.

---

All in all, with just a number of operators more, and proper technical and operational setup, a multi-language support can easily run integrated within rescue services. And by that, a better service in general, while improving efficiency in response handling.

As you may be aware, before Nazis raped the state of Prussia, and the military council of the Allies said that Prussia was to blame for the war, despite Prussia’s military having been dissolved more than a decade prior – before all of that, there was no European Union.

Then later, the EU was founded. In itself, I like the premise very much. For those of you, who don’t know the history in Europe, there were many wars in Europe, such as the Great Northern War 1700-1721, with the image showing a painting by Pierre-Denis Martin, depicting the Battle of Poltava (1709). This war in particular had more than a million deaths – and it arguably was part of what forged Prussia’s military at that time, to not be like a constant toy of the rulers all around in the neighbourhood.

And instead of such ‘politics’, by rulers barely anyone remembers their name already, the EU aims for a way more civilized approach. And that’s something I can easily support. Therefore, for an independent Prussia, to become member of the EU, that would seem a natural fit.

But, did the founders of the EU actually study issues, such as the Preußenschlag 1932, when the German federal government unlawfully removed Otto Braun as Prime Minister of Prussia? (A federal court of law agreed with Otto Braun, that it was unlawful, but that court decision had been ignored by the Reichstag and President – Otto Braun wrote about it in his memoires.) And was it really made that clear, that the EU is not to abuse its sort of higher standing, to the disadvantage of member/s in a number of aspects?

Personally, I am not convinced about that. As example, the issue about import duties. Prussia is no stranger to them, historically having levied duty on goods entering Berlin by boat, and so on, with then in 1833 the Zollverein, as customs union of German-speaking regions, and more focus on VAT for taxation. The topic isn’t really like some smartphone-app-game though.

---

Specifically in the EU these days, there are quite some differences about average income, when the members are compared. And generally, the EU may see import duties as a way to “protect domestic industry”. The issue though is, that many of that industry sits in the wealthier countries, while folks in the poorer countries are asked, to pay a surcharge in the name of those with way higher incomes. Meaning, someone with like 500 Euro monthly income in the east, goes to the market, and has a choice of a product e.g. from Germany or France, or one that comes with import duty from elsewhere in the world. And that’s not nice for these households, is it?

Then there is also the topic about inflation, where pushing prices up by import duties, means to push up inflation, doesn’t it? And once again, the poorer households are way more affected by this issue, especially when governments try to keep the expenses for social security at a barely liveable level, while billions get spent on weapons and hoarded in some bank accounts, and so on.

---

So, it doesn’t seem to me that the EU is being governed at a high standard. And that’s not even going into issues, such as that majority of EU parliament wants to deport entire nationalities into some camps in countries like Uganda. That is, when an EU member says that e.g. Afghanistan is a safe country, but a judge may not allow deportation thereto, that the EU solved “this issue” by just deporting them all to Uganda etc., in the name of alleged crime fighting. Or the issue about that economical interests stand above everything else – such as that ‘Hegseth’s racially pure U.S. military’ spends money on stuff and destroys school buildings, and EU yuppies are like: “Uhh, what companies are involved? I want to buy their stock, to make big profit of dead children.”

In such context, I find it quite hard, to be governed by such an order. And instead, leaving Prussian parliament aside for a moment, I would go with membership in the European Free Trade Association, or EFTA for short. As I understand it, that would make Prussia an economical-zone member in Europe, but without having to be subject to political agendas, such as the one about “white Europeans and Americans, need all the Lebensraum for themselves, as they feel threatened even by the wind blowing, for some dudes to then run it all like their personal fiefdom” (which was apparently the last thing they heard in school about these things, before they left to have a big party and party and party, to be never seen again in school).

And from the position of a like political outsider, I perceive it to be easier to properly talk about certain issues. Specifically, social security in the EU – the laws do differ, such as in regard to when an eviction is allowed – with a number of families then turning up homeless in a different member state, with usually not full access as residents have, sometimes accompanied by crime, such as stealing food in supermarkets – and EU members are each like: “Look at all these crimes by foreigners.” to then band together in EU parliament to punish some Afghans for all that mess.

In that sense, I see Prussia as an EFTA member, and clearly promoting humanist standards.

There is a lot to talk about. As example, the whole issue about many migrants arriving, in particular from Russia, and part of seeking to push everyone else out, in the name of “ancestral right”. All while it is not unheard of, that there are converts to Judaism, what makes them Jewish, but not necessarily so with ancestors going back thousands of years from that region (like, no Hebrew ancestors).

Similarly, just because someone is Muslim or Christian, doesn’t mean, that an ancestor of theirs didn’t convert – meaning that their Grandgrandgrand..father may have been from that region, and even Jewish.

And language spoken in family, can change quite quickly – like the descendants of migrants from Russia, they do not all speak Russian, do they? Let alone over centuries, as can be observed with the extinction of the Old Prussian language, due to them crusader migrants etc. making German the language of everyday use. And in case of related languages, such as with semitic languages going from Aramaic to Hebrew and Arab languages – it’s like an Italian speaker catching up quicker in France, than a German speaker does.

To many people, these issues may not be as relevant as simply: “Who has the upper hand, in terms of martial rule.” – But I think we can do better than developing some Machiavellian plans, like putting a sniper in Gibraltar and one in Sinai, which makes the entire U.S. Navy apparently go: “Ohh, nooo! There is no safe passage.”, impeding weapon deliveries to Israel, and pushing for their surrender, on the grounds, that the new overlord (for the time being) has a security policy for the protection of Israel, that unlike the current government’s policy, doesn’t rely on good will by persons such as Mr Hegseth, who has been quite open about not liking diversity, and so on.

---

Thus, if we talk about other plans, specifically, to make every country a liveable country, in regard to Israel and Palestine, my suggestion is very simple: A north-south border.

To the north, Israel, where the Hebrew nation has its Jewish state.

And to the south, like Palestine, or Judah. Ideally, if Egypt would consider to cede part of Sinai, for this state south, that would help to have more land, to build on, also for the diaspora. Such large scale constructions, of like a few towns, would require international assistance – but looking at profits of companies in the U.S., of some $4 trillion a year, and looking at what is all spent on weapons, such as in this conflict, it seems to me, that with a bit of good will, it would go a long way for millions of people and also the entire region.

At this point I need to mention another idea of mine, that is an “neighbourhood assembly” of representatives of all nationalities living in Berlin (or Prussia respectively). And in the assembly, there would be someone representing a number of Palestinians. And with them, there is stuff to talk about, such as whether the new state wants to use a penal system like we use it here, or to begin with, whether there is a need for scholarships, for more qualifications among Palestinians. Likewise, medical services. And so on, where things need to be done properly.

Nevertheless, what I would suggest is a treaty between the two states, about clear border, with possible provision, such as that citizens from the north can anytime visit Hebron (where the tomb of Abraham is at), and citizens from the south can anytime visit Jerusalem, regardless of other restrictions that may apply at a time, like visum requirement. And also a clause about that i.e. the southern state carries responsibility, for not anyone firing rockets from its territory just because they felt like it, and so on – pretty much making it clear, that the southern state is no threat.

And then there is also economics. But when traders and investors do not have a reason to be afraid, of being shot by some random bullet for just taking a look, some business is likely to flow, and also regard to issues such as railroad connection i.e. to Cairo.