Autor: DaLe

Expats, and the German language

Reportedly, there have been cases, where English-speaking expats living in Berlin for years, got dissed for not speaking German.

Underlying to this sort of diss, seems to be the notion, that one should learn the language of the country one resides in.

Personally, I lived and worked in three countries, with three different languages, I all learned to speak. But I generally wouldn’t expect it of every foreigner in Berlin. In example, tourists. I worked in hotels (in three different countries), and from my experience, a hotel e.g. in Spain employing staff speaking also German, and restaurants offering a menu also in German, they may likely have more revenue from tourists than a hotel, where the management is like: “No room for everyone, who can not recite Romance sonámbulo (surrealistic poem by Federico García Lorca) in Spanish.”

And then there is perhaps a 80-year old granny from Ukraine in Berlin. At that age, some persons are still fit enough to learn a new language. But to generally expect it, would be weird. Which then opens a bit different topic, in particular how to ensure that the granny can receive proper medical attention (beyond emergency per se), when she speaks only Ukrainian and just about every (licensed to practice) doctor in the city doesn’t. But there are options, such as having translator service, where staff translates remotely – that is, the granny doesn’t have to bring her own translator, but doctor uses PC or simply phone with loudspeaker to have a translator join the meeting.

Then there may be war orphans, who have arrived as minors on their own at the border. In such a case, it sure is nice if they get kind of adopted, as e.g. Germany does, by saying who their legal guardian is, and taking them to school etc. But, I am not sure if it is ok in such a case, to straight away basically “germanize” the minor, as in teaching it German, with no single lesson with their mother tongue. And that also isn’t a case, where I could plausibly agree with a general notion of “They have to learn German!”. Depending on the circumstances, if it is e.g. a Polish-speaking minor, contacting the Polish authorities about it, would seem a way more appropriate thing to do, than to “ethnically reeducate” the minor. And if the minor happens to be indeed a war orphan, well, to me it seems plausible for the child to have a teacher speaking their mother tongue, such as in form of a boarding school. At such school, the child may then also learn a new language, such as the local one. But to me that isn’t a primary concern.

Like, when a 16-year old arrives, who once had dreams about studying before their country was torn apart by war, there is no reason why the 16-year old couldn’t finish their highschool classes in their mother tongue – and if there is a prospect for them to then study in perhaps yet another country, or in a field that heavily relies on English anyhow, well, then English lessons would sound primarily important for the 16-year old, to boost the study path, and then also job opportunities.

That also brings me to international students in general. Like, when someone arrives in Berlin to study for 5 years, not necessarily in German, but i.e. computer science in English. Sure nice if they learn at least a few phrases in German. But generally, they are likely busy with their study. As is everyone in Berlin for a work-stay.

And as far as I see it, there is no problem at large, when not everyone in the city speaks the same language with each other. There are cases, where it sure is even practical to speak one common language. I.e. when a family is in Berlin with child in school, it sure is nice when also parent and teacher can understand each other. But generally, when e.g. David Bowie, Iggy Pop, and Nick Cave lived in Berlin, it wasn’t like the world would have necessarily gained much, if they would have happened to start singing German Schlager-music, in the name of integration into the one German society.

Zu abtrünnigem Professor

In Medien macht ein Fall die Runde, zu Professor an Hochschule des Bundes für öffentliche Verwaltung im Fachbereich Nachrichtendienste, gegen welchen es eine Disziplinarverfügung gibt, wegen Behauptungen, welche in einem Buch aufgestellt hat.

Ich selbst sehe das nicht als Zensur, im Sinne von “Buch aus Umlauf nehmen”. An für sich, wenn mancher Verlag meint, dass es mal wieder Zeit ist, pangermanistische Thesen zu drucken, ob nun aus Überzeugung oder weil man sich davon dieser Tage fette Beute verspricht, das Strafgesetzbuch sagt an dem Punkt nicht, dass das nicht erlaubt ist (wenn es nicht gewisse Grenzen überschreitet, z.B. zu § 140).

Da mag man zwar nicht unbedingt begeistert von sein. Und dies aus verschiedenen Gründen. Z.B. in Bayern hat der damalige Ministerpräsident (und “Vater der bayerischen Verfassung”) Wilhelm Hoegner den Bayerischen Verdienstorden als „Zeichen ehrender und dankbarer Anerkennung für hervorragende Verdienste um den Freistaat Bayern und das bayerische Volk“ gestiftet. Und wenn da manche kommen und sagen: “Es gibt nichts außer dem deutschen Volk.”, da passt eine Vorstellung eines “bayrischen Volkes” nicht.

Und wenn die pangermanistische These sogar soweit geht, zu behaupten, dass wer nicht vererbt bzw. genetisch dazugehört, kein Deutscher sein kann – etwas was bei Nazis in deren ‘Rassenlehre’ Bedeutung fand, und auch bei Dingen angewendet wurde, um sich weitere Gebiete als Nazi-Deutschland anzueignen, wie z.B. bei den sogenannten “Sudetendeutschen” – da fragt man sich als Preuße schon, ob die Vertreter solcher Thesen freiwillig etwas Gebiet abtreten, auf welches man sich z.B. als Nachkomme von Herkus Monte remigrieren kann, oder ob die Vorstellung darin besteht, dass man als Preuße dann wie die Tschechen unter Habsburgern zu leben hat.

Aber es gehört halt zur liberalen Demokratie dazu, dass es verschiedene Ansichten gibt, welche verbreitet werden, und dass bei der Verbreitung Billigramsch überwiegt. Im Beispiel, Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”, wurde in viele Sprachen übersetzt, aber z.B. das Werk von Hagen Schulze zu Otto Braun, in keiner weiteren Sprache vorzufinden – wobei es nicht Unsummen wären, es zumindest in paar Sprachen übersetzen zu lassen, aber damit lässt sich anscheinend nicht so viel Geld machen, wie mit Tourismus-Werbung in USA im Sinne von: “Berlin, the city where Adolf spent some time at. Like Donald, he didn’t like migration. Come, and see for yourself the places, where Adolf took Methamphetamin, and hear the tale of how he and his buddies turned a civil society into a dystopia.” – und die Finanzen sind doch ever so important… auch wenn man vielleicht mal fragen könnte, ob es nicht etwas absurd ist, dass öffentliche Mittel dafür ausgeben werden, um Geld in Taschen der Hoteliers zu bringen (welche auch von selbst Werbung für Berlin machen könnten), während kaum was für allgemeinen Zweck ausgegeben wird, wie z.B. das Werk von Hagen Schulze zu übersetzen, wo der freie Markt von selbst eher nicht drauf kommt.

Etwas anderer Kontext als Zensur ist jedoch, wenn es bei der Person um einen “Staatsbediensteten” geht.

Im Beispiel, bei Polizei in BRD ist es üblicherweise sogar etwas im Detail schriftlich erfasst, was man im Dienst, und auch außerhalb vom Dienst, so machen und sagen darf.

Dabei geht es zum einen um gewisse Geheimhaltung bei laufenden Verfahren. Z.B. so ein Sozialmediapost, dass man morgen für Razzia bei soundso eingeteilt ist, sowas ist nicht im Sinne der Dienstvorschriften.

Und zum anderen geht es auch darum, dass der Polizist sozusagen wie indirekter Repräsentant seines Dienstherren ist, also allgemein des Staates, oder spezifisch z.B. der Stadt Berlin.

Und wenn sich ein Polizist z.B. bei Begleitung einer Demo mit den Demo-Teilnehmern über das Demo-Thema unterhält, da sind die persönlichen Ansichten des Polizisten unterrangig.

Im Beispiel: “Per Staatsdekret werden hiermit im preußischen Staatsgebiet vorläufig alle Tierversuche an allen Tieren außer den Labormäusen, ausgesetzt, und die Tiere welche sich derzeit in Laborkäfigen befinden (außer den Mäusen), sollen nicht eingeschläfert werden, aber werden von staatlicher Institution lebend übernommen – konkret z.B. Affen und Hunde. Weiteres hierzu wird in parlamentarischer Runde geklärt.”

Das würden an für sich nicht unbedingt alle Leute in Berlin und Brandenburg schlimm finden. Aber kann schon sein, dass Demo kommen würde, welche so: “Wir sagen Nein zu jedwedem Staatsdekret.”, oder spezifisch mit Plakaten wie: “Tierversuche leisten Beitrag zur Gesundheit.” – Und Gepflogenheit in Berlin ist, dass so eine Demo von Polizisten begleitet wird, offiziell zu Schutz deren Meinungsfreiheit.

Und einer der Begleitpolizisten, seine persönliche Ansicht ist, dass es schon ok ist, Affen wie in KZ zu züchten, um dann im Namen von Menschenleben mit den Primaten Experimente zu machen, wie z.B. Affe mit Virus zu infizieren, um zu testen, ob solcher oder jener Impfstoff Wirkung zeigt – bis hin zu Tests für Kosmetikprodukte.

Standpunkt des Verfassers des Dekrets ist aber, dass es so nicht ok ist. Man mag ja zwar anerkennen, dass es nicht unbedingt bei jedem dieser Labore um wie Alchymiekeller geht, wo ständig hauptsächlich danach gesucht wird, welche Mischung welcher Chemikalien, nicht ganz so tödlich verläuft, um es als irgendein “neues Mittel gegen irgendwas” zu vermarkten. Aber, wenn die medizinische Wissenschaft nur daran hängt, sogar einen Primaten als was ganz anderes als einen Menschen einzustufen – während aber auch sagt, dass doch voll ähnlich sind, und deswegen Experimente an Primaten nutzvoll, ohne mal darüber zu reden, dass in einer wissenschaftlichen Welt, wo die Seele nicht existiert, dies Experimente wie an Kindern anderer Primatenfamilie sind – da hört es sich nicht danach an, dass die medizinische Wissenschaft so läuft, wie sie vielleicht laufen würde, wenn man einfach mal sagt: “In Berlin und Brandenburg, keine Tierversuche an Primaten, Beagles, und weiteren.”

Der Polizist mag da zwar von seinem Umfeld eine Krankheit kennen, für welche er einem Affen höchstpersönlich die Kehle durchschneiden würde, wenn dies einen (vermeintlichen) Beitrag zu der Bekämpfung dieser Krankheit leistet. Aber das bedeutet nicht, dass der Polizist unbedingt dafür wäre, dass hinter seinem Hausgarten eine Lagerhalle hingestellt wird, in welcher Tausende Affen in Käfigen, im Namen von Research & Development von irgendeiner Firma, und er dann versetzt wird, um an Tor der Firma zu überprüfen, ob das auch wirklich alles Affen sind, die da gebracht werden, und nicht z.B. Kleinkinder. Und in dem Sinne sollte dem Polizisten schon klar sein, dass wenn nicht Außen vor bleibt, der Hintergrund des Dekrets schon komplexer ist, als worüber man sonst so beim Spaziergang redet.

Sowas betrifft dann auch andere “Stellen”. Spezifisch, wenn es um juristische Fragen geht, da gehört man als Staat generell einer wie Rechtsschule an, wenn man mal z.B. Shariah-Jurisdiktionen als mehrere verschiedene Rechtsschulen nennt, ähnlich wie z.B. die Gesetze und Gerichte in BRD etwas anders gestaltet sind, als was es z.B. in UK und USA, oder in Frankreich der Fall ist. Im Sinne der Rechtsschule wird man dann auch promoviert und so.

Und da sehe ich schon als Problem, wenn einer derer, welche direkt mit Rechtswissenschaft der Juraschule zu tun haben, sich mit Publikationen sozusagen abtrünnig zu den “Lehren” verhält. Also Lehren, wie z.B. dass man die “Bürgerschaft” als eine Mitgliedschaft im Staat verstehen kann. Beziehungsweise auf eine Einzelperson bezogen, es besteht ein gewisses Rechtsverhältnis zwischen der natürlichen Person und dem Staat, welcher eine gewisse juristische Person darstellt. Dieses Rechtsverhältnis wird allgemein als “Bürgerschaft” bezeichnet. Und da zu kommen und Thesen aufzutischen, wie: “Und an dem Punkt, da macht es voll Sinn anhand von vermeintlicher Ethnizität zu unterscheiden, wie ob jemand ein Biodeutscher ist, und wenn nicht, dann wird dem die Mitgliedschaft gekündigt, und uns doch egal, was dann als staatenloser macht.” – sowas in der Art verstößt schon vom Prinzip her gegen den Rechtsrahmen der Bürgerschaft.

Womit ich hier nicht die genannte Disziplinarverfügung absegne. Aber, für mich hört sich das danach an, dass es statt irgendwelcher 10% Kürzung einfach die Fragestellung geben sollte: “Hier biste Teil einer Staatsgemeinschaft, und entweder biste ein Teil, oder halt draußen auf’m Marktplatz um Deine Thesen zu vermarkten, noch dazu zu Themen, für welche es eigentlich Fachbereich gibt.”

The game shows on social media

Social media, a term used for social networking platforms, such as Facebook (launched in 2004) and formerly known Twitter (2006).

Before such platforms came to be, the public internet was mostly like a hobby basement. Like, general and topic-specific forums, and online gaming associations, ranging from playing chess online to multiplayer of back then “modern” video games – i.e. the gaming platform Steam was launched in 2003, and the first 3D video games were from only a few years before. In 2000, first broadband was introduced, back then at 512 kbps. In 2001, 3G network made it possible for mobile phones to connect to the internet, and in 2007 the first iPhone was sold.

In numbers, by 1996, there were worldwide about 45 million people using the internet, by 1999, 150 million, by 2000 there were 407 million, and it grew ever since. So, unlike the companies affected by the dot-com crash in early 2000, these online services appeared during the years, many (just) got their first internet connection.

Personally, I was hanging out with people via Internet Relay Chat. Something how Discord (2015) looks like – a number of chat channels. And offline, I was using phone for contact with friends and family. So, Facebook was not of much interest to me. But basically, sure nice service, for people to easily connect with each other. And also nice, for people to be able to promote their content. Like, someone taking cute cat photo, for people to easily share it with each other.

As the years went by, and more people joined such social networking sites, it became places with relatively large audience, as in one room. And, this made it more valuable to those, who want to send a message to or among the audience.

On one hand, this concerns targeted advertising. In example, running a shop in Berlin, I would want to let people know, that the shop exists to begin with, and it sure sounds a nice feature, being able to ask e.g. Facebook for some ad displays specifically to users from Berlin.

On the other hand, there are people, who use the mechanics of the online service, to push their agenda into everyone’s view.

Specifically, the cat photo from earlier, it went sort of “naturally viral”, with everyone of the photographer’s friends liking and sharing it further, and post ending up on some chart of “hits of the day”, traveling perhaps all the way into TV even, such as a TV morning show, talking about this photo and showing it, and perhaps even inviting the photographer onto the show.

In contrast to that, stands an organized manner, in which a post gets pushed. Such as drilling YouTube channel viewers, to like and subscribe, to bring them numbers up, all with that free viral marketing – but taking it even further, to inflate these numbers. Such as by grouping together – let’s take a discussion about comparison of video game consoles as example.

A number of YouTubers say: “Xbox, the best.” and a number of YouTubers say: “Playstation for life!”. And among the audience, the viewers may perhaps tend to side with what they know from home. Like, comments under videos such as: “Hell yeah, Playstation! I have one here, and it makes things appear on screen. There surely can’t be anything better.”

So far, it just sounds like normal fun. But for whichever “reason”, things may get quite heated, reaching even levels such as the viewers of one YouTube channel having intimidated another YouTuber from a different channel, and even went as group to where he was living at. And this sort of raw viewer-crowd power, some used to wage some YouTuber-gang warfare with, that gets used by some others primarily for maximising the free marketing effects, by pushing the content of their supposed side, by making everyone feel involved about it.

And what this means is, that even a loose network of broadcasters, can push out a stream of like 24/7 “fresh” content, to constantly make it into e.g. the Twitter headlines, when there is an audience obdiently and consistently upvoting the content of these broadcasters.

And that in turn means, that to be part of the game, to be among the Twitter headlines and such, it would also need a somewhat organized manner about it. As in rallying the masses, to get even more upvotes on own content, than that other guy has.

To me, that seems rather childish. To the owners of these social networks, every spectacle may be great, that makes the users go click-click-click, to increase ad-views. But for political discourse, to not be much more than an online shouting match, where people compete for upvotes (and for ad revenue), day-in day-out, that seems quite silly. To be precise, if I were involved in a political party, there is an argument for the organization of an election campaign, to include presence on social media, to be seen where many of the voters happen to hang out a lot or even most of their time. But I wouldn’t really perceive it different, than it just being one of the media channels, for political ads.

In example, political ads in TV. In a numbers of countries, there are regulations about this, when they can be aired and such. And why not make use of it, especially when the “political competition” has their spots on air already. But that doesn’t mean, that this political party would strive to be the main subject of every type of show such a TV channel has. That is shows such as:

“Who will get the most upvotes today? Watch the arena match competitors in live-stream today! A rap-battle of epic proportions, about telling it everyone in their face. Today’s topic, as stipulated by the first louder shout, should women’s voter rights be turned back? The lines get drawn among the competitors, about who stands on which side about this question, that now everyone is talking about, and you heard it here first. So, today, who will get the most upvotes? Stay tuned, we’ll be right back after these commercials.”, and so forth.

Tabloid journalism and sensationalism

Personally, I don’t perceive tabloid journalism to be necessarily a bad thing. Like when there is a room, full of Wall Street businessmen, counting their profits, for someone to like burst in and be like: “And what about the homeless?”, and in case of a general “We don’t care.”, to continue a newspaper article like: “Is this the world we want? A world, where the people at the economical and political top, don’t care even about their fellow citizen freezing to death in the thousands!” – such turns to sensationalism, but seems fair game.

But – while in this case, the cause may be all noble-like, just wanting to cause a commotion to get the topic rolling in public – when the entire business model is about scandalizing everything, to sell them copies and/or ad-revenue, it usually ends up as quite cheap sensationalism. “Cheap”, as in for someone to spend some hours on research, such as about eviction law in the jurisdiction, and talking to a judicial expert about whether landlords adhere at least to that minimal set of requirements as laid out by law, and so on, that requires work-time. And when the article then brings in perhaps $100 with ad-revenue, that aren’t really many hours that can be paid from it.

And what we are looking at these days, seems to be quite a number of groups trying to make profit with cheap content. Something, which sure sounds sweet. Just talking for an hour, or making some blog-posts, and thanks to ads, there is an income, some are able to live on. But, this isn’t necessarily quality content, even if the studio looks like all posh – just like a fine-dining restaurant, but ends up serving microwave-meals they got from a supermarket.

So, myself, I am not a fan of spending time, to listen to someone just rambling on about stuff. But just as I like being able to express my thoughts, as in these words here, it’s the modern day, with everyone being able to broadcast, with just a PC, smartphone, and similar.

What seems quite a pity to me though, is when the cheap ramblings get treated like it would be professional stuff. That isn’t to say that a ramble may not have a point. But, a load of pathos is just that, and far from actual journalism or even politics. In example, I may ramble on for an hour about how I am unemployed, after Mr Trump made life harder for economies in Europe. But to just insult him for an hour, to speculate about his “brain processing power”, and so on, that would be kinda pathetic even if it may be spicy – whereas a political commentary would rather focus on the lack of local job opportunities, and talk about that in a serious manner. Like:

“Welcome to today’s episode of DaLe’s Show. Our topic today, the situation on the job market in Berlin in particular, a situation complicated by recent woes about trade tariffs on both sides of the Atlantic ocean. …”

That may sound boring already, compared to all them variety shows, and whatnot. But like this, it is rather going into actual politics, instead of making a spectacle out of everything.

The witch-hunt of Jimmy Kimmel

They canceled Jimmy Kimmel. The apparent reason was this passage (at 2:02), where Mr Kimmel said during a show monologue:

“The MAGA Gang (is) desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it. In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving.”

I talked about this issue in a previous blog-post. And I think Mr Kimmel made a valid point. I would call it a form of Sensationalism, that seems to be going on a lot. Like the headline of this blog-post, totally scandalous how they treat him, and all that – and with this, I perhaps draw a reader in, to be outraged together about it.

And if I were about to fill two hours of a stream, with no care about doing preparation nor about like journalistic standards, it might quickly turn to speculations, like: “You know, when Jimmy said it, that was after Mr Trump said the thing on Fox about California. And the chair of the FCC threatened to take action because of what Jimmy said, who happens to be in California. So, could it be, that the witch-hunt of Jimmy Kimmel is politically motivated, to cleanse California of everyone Mr Trump doesn’t deem worthy of existence? Crazy, right? And have you heard of Herschel Grynszpan? He killed a German diplomat in 1938, and the Nazis used it as pretext to launch pogroms.”

Or if I were be looking to score a specific point with the main audience of Jimmy Kimmel, I might be like: “Let’s rename something after Jimmy, to remind us of what he stood for, such as (insert agenda point, even something such as that Jimmy would have wanted us to purchase a new TV, link below).”

But do I actually care? Well, I don’t think that Jimmy Kimmel and Co. will necessarily join the masses of the homeless in California. I mean, if someone of the staff had perhaps relatively little salary, with which they were barely able to make mortgage payments, that may get tough. But a loss of job, happens, as I also know from own experience. So, it is not like I am grieving for them.

On the other hand, generally, for what sounds like a political critique to me, to receive such repercussion, that seems to be quite lacking a civil discourse. Such as asking, whether it would honor Mr Kirk’s legacy, to go hard in on everyone deemed a political activist not in line with what a sort of U.S. politburo deems to be in order. Mr Kirk may have been more of a showman, than an academician. But he seemed to enjoy to talk as he deemed fit to, and as far as that went, similar would be e.g.:

“Mr Trump is just a quota guy. Republicans were like: Oh, who we gonna nominate for President. He has to be white. Let’s switch on the TV, and look at Donald, he is white…ish. And that’s how he got the job, for being a white guy, but he doesn’t have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously.”

and so on. And it is hypocritical, when a double standard is used. Like, when the standard in U.S. is, that everyone can call everyone else a retard, even based on some racial categorization from the 19th century, then that is the standard. And quite weird to say: “But how dare this Kimmel say such a thing!”, isn’t it?

About individual liberty, and abortion

“If you don’t have freedom over your own body, none of the rest of it matters.”

Melissa Hortman made a very good point.

In the U.S., likely many associate this quote with questions about abortion. And that sure is also an aspect. But let’s first take a look at the issue at large.

That is the issue of cases, when someone didn’t or doesn’t have freedom over their own body. E.g. slavery – that was usually a case, where humans got treated like cattle. In Europe, during feudalism something similar existed until the end of the 18th century, called serfdom. And the list of cases goes on. Even getting punched, limits or violates a person’s freedom, when this person didn’t specifically agree to take part e.g. in a proper boxing match. And when the case is, that children receive corporal punishment in schools, which is still legal in some parts of the U.S., even worse.

So, quite a range of cases, where modern states usually agree, that every individual is their own person, who shouldn’t be subject to arbitrary limitations of their freedoms and rights by other persons – and that where the state i.e. imprisoning someone is concerned, it must have proper standards.

This means, for the State (police, courts, lawmakers) to get to forcefully enter a flat of an individual, or to arrest the person, there needs to be a “probable cause”. The threshold of when even a razzia may occur, such tends to vary a bit among countries, respectively among jurisdictions. But generally, a state which doesn’t take liberties, such state respects the liberties of all individuals, and even offers (legal) protection for these liberties (as in: “If not even the state gets to enslave civilians to build a pyramid for the head of state, then so shall no one else.”).

Due to the aforementioned, I perceive the modern State to be way more of a care-taker, than some patriarch authority of old, ruling about every matter of public and private matters. In example, if a restaurant offers one, two, or three bathrooms, even from the side of the state, I would say that it is their business, as long as there is some provision as agreed by the license to run a restaurant. Whereas some notion of that some council of elders decides how many bathrooms there have to be in every restaurant (such as Republicans apparently saying two), such notion seems quite absurd to me. That said, it would be nice, if restaurants would be more accessible to persons with a handicap, in particular in wheelchair, including accessible sanitary facility. But instead of forcing everyone to rebuild their restaurants, the “caretaking” involves rather to take a look at minimum inside-area requirements for new buildings with commercial use, where also e.g. an area for changing diapers is practical, such as at a shopping mall, or at train stations.

And as such modern state, with deep-rooted respect for individual liberties, when it comes to the topic of abortion, the main question is, at which point is an unborn considered an individual person, who comes with rights and freedoms, an abortion would infringe upon.

Like, when Catholics are asked, many seem to be like: “Even sperm is sacred, as it serves procreation, and that’s why masturbation is sinful, as it doesn’t serve procreation.” (a stance, which seem to be largely based on a passage in the Bible about Onan, where it may have been merely about the fact, that someone had to clean the floor afterwards). And when Rabbis are asked, they seem to say, that the soul enters the body with the first breath – that is, with birth, as the child didn’t breath itself in the womb.

Talking about this topic further, it even comes to stem-cell research being mentioned. That is the research, where some are basically dissecting human embryonic stem cells – at a stage such as 4 days after fertilization, at which point the human egg and sperm, have turned into around 100 cells.

Personally, I find it difficult to view these 100 cells as an individual. And where I am like: “Now it starts to get interesting.”, is around the 6th week, when the heart starts beating, and around the 8th week of pregnancy, when there starts to be electrical activity in the brain area.

In such context, to me it seems plausible, that professional medical assistance is available, when a girl or woman wants to abort a pregnancy, within a number of weeks since the pregnancy started. In Germany, this comes with a mandatory interview.

That said, it would be nice, if the situation would not occur, that someone wants to abort their pregnancy. Meaning, use of contraceptives, would help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, to begin with. Or if it is about a couple, who despite employment can’t afford or find a bigger flat, they would need for a family life – some support and politics, which actually would help the couple, would make way more sense, than an abortion.

But generally, for the public, parliament, king, pope, or whoever, to say that they have complete authority over what is expected of the couple, in regard to them having consensually mixed their bodies with each other, in my view, that is overstepping a boundary into private matters of the couple.

Meanwhile, traditional values don’t need to get cast aside. But instead of wanting to uphold these values by restrictions, it would already help quite a lot, when there would be some help for young families to get a foothold in these crazy markets, where not everyone has like their own clan-corporation ship to live on – and such support perhaps even to an extent that both don’t have to work full time all the time, just to be able to afford rent and food.

Why I don’t consider Crypto a good investment

I have been on the lower end of the income ladder for many years. Not as low, as $1 a day, as some folks in a number of countries. But at my first full-time job, pay was what would now be about 350 Euro a month, for 210+ hours worked – and that is quite low even compared to the current federal minimum wage in the United States, at $7.25 per hour.

Later, I was able to save up some hundreds of Euro, and I wondered where I would put it, so that it at least wouldn’t depreciate due to inflation over the years, and be of some use in retirement, as pillow for expenses such as a new fridge. And evaluating the options, I didn’t put even a single Euro in crypto.

Technically, it sure is possible to make a profit from trading crypto. But in my view, the main problem is, that the value of this or that crypto, it depends way too much on money flowing in by these trades.

In contrast, a company with public stock, such may be paying yearly dividends worth 5% of the value of the stock, based on the revenue it had with its business. So, even if the company doesn’t have skyrocketing growth over the next 10 to 20 years, the stock ends up paying for itself, even if it isn’t traded daily in large volumes. Whereas with crypto, there is no such revenue, nor are there assets (such as a factory of a company).

So, an investment in crypto, it is pretty much just a bet on that others will keep purchasing crypto as well. A bet which did turn out plentiful for some, but in my view, it doesn’t mathematically add up for everyone.

In example, let’s say I make my own crypto, the DaLe-Coin. It’s the newest hottest craziest thing ever, and all that. And I am offering one coin for merely $1,000, with only 1,000 coins in existence.

And now, someone may be like: “I take two.” – and price/value on the market goes up. So far, cool. I can already pay rent, and the purchaser of the two coins, they may be already doing free marketing for me, as they are now invested in this crypto with $2,000.

Next round, even more people start buying DaLe-Coin. Price goes up even further. And I am like over the moon, already dreaming about making it onto the property ladder, like a small place of my own. And the first purchasers are also glad. But, a new purchaser may now look at a price of like $10,000 a coin.

This is in itself not necessarily a problem. As I sell some of the last coins I hold, the first purchaser may perhaps also start selling the two coins they hold, and so on, still making it possible for the $10,000 “value” to increase, when there are still people buying. And even someone coming in at $10,000 may perhaps look at $20,000 after some time. But to achieve that, it still needs that viral momentum, for people to want to get this DaLe-Coin.

And without this momentum, the guy who went in at $10,000, they need to create that momentum, basically like the free marketing again, if they don’t want to lose out on possibly thousands of dollars. And so on and so on. And to me, that doesn’t seem much of a fair trade, because I would be leaving that guy with all the risk about DaLe-Coin, whereas with a DaLe-company stock, it would still be of mutual interest for the stock to perform well, largely due to the business running well.

And that’s why I am rather skeptical about putting money into crypto. Which isn’t to say, that there won’t be further growth to the crypto market. In particular, if some popular video game starts using (own) crypto as a sort of game currency (perhaps as reaction to legislation, saying that paid for in-game currency must be able to be changed back to cash), then that would likely be a large number of players, who would start buying crypto, to purchase in-game horse armor with, and whatnot. But that all sounds too speculative for my taste, in regard to putting some money aside for rainy days.

The fear of immigration

“King Frederick William I of Prussia welcomes the Salzburg Protestants, 30th April 1732”
– Painting by Konstantin Johann Franz Cretius

White rural America is very afraid, of being replaced by something else. At least a prominent Republican implied so, all while the same side associates crimes with immigrants to such an extent, that mass-deportations are supposed to solve it all. And what would the folks living their entire lives in villages and small towns know about it, when they are told by supposedly informed authorities, that foreigners are coming to get the girls – with cases, such as that Virginia Giuffre did indeed end up marrying a foreigner, after old-ish white Americans had their fun with her.

Personally, I do see things way more differentiated. In example, over here in Europe, there are sometimes violent confrontations between hooligan-fans of soccer-teams. So, when there is a soccer match, and hooligans from one town commit criminal acts in another town, i.e. 50 miles away, that could also be considered a sort of migrant criminality. Yet, to erect a wall between the two towns, that doesn’t really help about there being on both sides males, who want to be violent.

And historically, here in Berlin, there hasn’t been any problem with immigrants at large, until Nazis arrived and claimed that there is a problem. Berlin grew to a city with millions of inhabitants, by 1920 one of the largest world-wide, due to immigration from near and far. And quite a number of these were refugees.

In particular, in the year 1685, there was the Edict of Potsdam, after which approximately 20,000 Huguenot refugees settled in Prussia. Huguenots had been persecuted in France.

By 1731, many of the 20,000 Salzburg Protestants, settled in Prussia, after having been expelled due to the Counter-Reformation. Similarly, also Protestants from other places arrived, and refugees from Russia, and also folks e.g. from Turkey – in particular serving in the Prussian Army, see “Bosniak Corps” from the mid-18th century, and also i.e. diplomats, like Ali Aziz Efendi, who died in 1798 and had funeral according to Islamic rite in Berlin – and by mid-19th century, the Ottoman Empire had a plot of land in Berlin, that is since used as cemetery (now by Turkey).

And quite a number of other stories. I.e. in this picture here, Gustav Sabac el Cher in 1908, born 1868 in Berlin. He served as bandmaster in the Prussian Army.

So, to say, as some do, such as among AfD, or similarly the White House, that immigration is generally a bad thing, such notion seems quite absurd to me.

And, especially when there is humanitarian catastrophe, these days mostly man-made, it isn’t the refugees that are to blame. In example, Syria – permanent UN Security Council members seem to have fought a proxy-war over there, with also fanatics from Iraq involved – and then someone born in 2005 turned up at the border from Syria, and gets blamed for everything bad? That seems quite a ridiculous notion.

And as far as criminality by foreigners is concerned, there is also a lot to differentiate. Like, the homeless person from Poland, who somehow ended up in Berlin, and got caught stealing food or something to drink from a shop, such “simple theft” represents about 20% of all crime in Germany – and then it even differentiates further, in regard to that about a quarter of shop thefts are attributed to persons working there, and another quarter to gang criminality as such. And the homeless from abroad, when someone actually takes a look, they can see that these persons sit like in a ditch between the national Social security systems of EU member states. Like, no income whatsoever, and no local health insurance – pretty much existential poverty.

In this case, these persons may perhaps once have had a slim chance of not becoming homeless. But a wall on the border to Poland doesn’t help these people, who would likely just end up sitting in a homeless camp elsewhere, when politics in several countries are just like: “It’s everyone for themselves! Hundreds of billions in monthly profits of U.S. companies, and no dime even for our own homeless.”.

And stuff like that, where at least some humanism would be nice instead.

About nuclear weapons in Germany

There are nuclear weapons stationed in Germany. Specifically, the B61 nuclear bomb. Until recently, it were 20 bombs of the Mod 4, that were to be replaced with the modernized Mod 12, with a ‘yield’ of up to 50 kilotons.

These are U.S. bombs, stationed in several countries in Europe as part of NATO Nuclear Weapons Sharing. In case of use, these bombs are meant to be delivered e.g. by German pilots.

In total, there are about 150 of these B61 bombs stationed in Europe. This is far less crazy than back during the Cold War, when there were more than 7,000 nuclear weapons from the U.S., stationed in Europe. I think that it is still crazy though.

The general notion is one of: “Don’t throw nuclear weapons at us, or else, we will throw nuclear weapons at you.” Eye for an eye, basically, just like thousands of years ago – except now with the firepower to annihilate entire cities within minutes, and to make large swathes of land unhabitable.

I get that premise. And sure, I also wouldn’t want to have to live under the boot of someone, who is like: “Don’t you dare to speak about a man consensually kissing a man in front of children, and tell the children instead how to make the rivers overflow with human blood.”

But at which point, would a nuclear weapon actually be used? In example, when Mr Putin would order an unit near Minsk, to annihilate Berlin with nuclear weapons, would the decision maker in NATO order for Minsk to be annihilated?

And that’s where I have an issue with, for among other my death to be used as justification for killing other civilians. And depending on how even more crazy it gets, such as Mr Hegseth filling the heads of officers with the notion, that only a white planet can stand strong against the radical left aliens from outer space, coming to eat us all – are there really checks and balances, that would prevent NATO from being the ones, who start a nuclear war?

From what I gathered, that seems barely the case. In particular, the German federal parliament asked the government on 26th March 2010, to ask the U.S. to remove their nuclear weapons from Germany. But the government didn’t do that, and the more recent government then even spent billions to prep a new airfield for these weapons.

And I just want to say, that I don’t agree with a concept of: “Only a few know, what is in the interest of the people, and the people ought to accept that.”. Nor do I think that it helps geopolitics, when all the big players are just in it, to win with their team, even over the dead bodies of millions, and no one left, to be rather more of a neutral mediator. As in someone looking at things more objectively and putting some real effort into it, than to just move stacks of money for weapons and instead of looking at everything through a lense of self-interests of the team-members with no regard about how e.g. all of Africa ought to defend itself against nuclear annihiliation, when all of the permanent UN Security Council members are saying that such is possible only with even more nuclear weapons – which doesn’t seem to be a rational approach in regard to this planet of ours, and all of us living on it.

Did Charlie Kirk knew too much about Trump and Epstein?

After the murder of Melissa Hortman und her husband in June 2025, a number of prominent figures in the U.S., claimed that “the left” was to blame. The arrested suspect was a Trump supporter though.

And since some people are basically claiming that the murder investigation is already solved, blaming once again “the left”, even though the suspect is at large and no manifesto or anything – is it an attempt to mislead the public about what really happened?

After all, what is known at this point? A single sniper shot killed Charlie Kirk. That sounds like a professional was involved. But that in itself doesn’t imply that it had to be a leftist, unless one assumes that a politically right-oriented shooter would have been too drunk at that time of day.

Also, it happened in Utah. Utah has a Republican governor. And crime is according to some figures in the U.S. only a problem in states with Democratic governors.

So, could it have been an inside job, to clean the ranks of those, who are considered to be a problem for the administration?

Charlie Kirk clearly had at least access to the inner circle of the Trump administration, and he had some media reach. Based on that, he may have obtained information, that someone didn’t want the public to learn. Information, such as possible insight into the Epstein files – and possibly details about what Mr Trump and Mr Epstein were all doing together, before they had a falling out, apparently over Virginia Giuffre having worked for Mr Trump, and then having been hired to work for Mr Epstein instead.

The are other possibilities as well though. Charlie Kirk pointed out in 2023 that the second amendment comes with some gun deaths. He did consider it “a cost worth paying”, and was supportive of the second amendment. But perhaps some NRA supporter didn’t like, what may have sounded like a hint of criticism.

He was also talking about second amendment being there, “so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government” – and that doesn’t sound like something those would like, who want to decide for the people that Republicans ought to rule them forever and about everything – even telling the people what to think, despite no evidence even pointing in that direction, such as with the claims of a “leftist perpetrator” in the case of the murder of Melissa Hortman and her husband.

And further speculating, the murder could have been, because the girlfriend of the shooter, fell in love with Charlie Kirk, and she split up with the shooter over it – and now he is perhaps comforting her in his arms.

And another story, after the attack on Hamas leadership in Qatar, perhaps a retaliation was ordered.

That said, it sure may have also been, as is implied by some commentators, that a radical far-left organization is on the loose, killing Democrats and Republicans left and right, until none remains. But, based on the facts at hand, to claim it to be so, while the criminal investigation barely started, that sounds quite like a fictional thriller movie some want to sell.