German army against German civilians?

This video is called GERMAN STATES TOY SOLDIERS. From the Emperor Napoleon I era, including Bavaria.

Unfortunately, now about 21st century real soldiers.

By Tino Jacobson and Peter Schwarz in Germany:

Bavarian State Regiment

German government prepares troops for domestic missions

18 May 2019

With the pilot project of a Bavarian “state regiment”, the German federal government is secretly and unconstitutionally creating an armed homeland security force. This links up with the tradition of volunteer military organizations that terrorized the working class during the Weimar Republic in the 1920s and 1930s.

The Bavarian State Regiment is a joint project of the Federal Ministry of Defence, the Bundeswehr (armed forces), the Reservists Association and the Bavarian state government. The project officially began on April 1 and will be extended to the whole of Germany after a trial period until the end of 2021. The first state regiment will enter service on May 18 in Roth near Nuremberg. It includes 500 reservists, as well as five active Bundeswehr soldiers. Fifty other active Bundeswehr soldiers will take part in exercises and join up in case of emergency.

The proposal to build state regiments comes from Oswin Veith, Christian Democratic Union (CDU) member of parliament. Veith is president of the Reservists Association, funded by the Defence Ministry, and in addition to enjoying the free provision of offices, exercise areas and materials, is funded with around €14 million annually.

At the annual meeting of the Bundeswehr reserve in autumn 2016, Veith announced: “I dream that in 2026 there will be a provincial regiment in each state with a charismatic commander, a troop flag and an organization of between 800 and 2,000 reservists to support the police and the Bundeswehr in emergency situations.”

In draft guidelines, which he sent internally to association leaders the following year, Veith called for universal compulsory service, obliging all 16- to 35-year-old men and women to undertake social duties. Those who decided to serve in the Bundeswehr should be able to serve in one of 16 state regiments near their home town.

According to Veith, the state regiments would form a “national reserve” with around 30,000 posts and have a clear ideological orientation. The “reservist, who has not yet committed or wanted to get involved” should be “addressed and motivated with the positive term ‘national’”.

An internal analysis of the Bundeswehr at that time rejected this proposal on the grounds that the guidelines of the Reservists Association were “incompatible” with the German constitution. The structures of the state regiments “contradict the state’s monopoly of force” and some of the chosen formulations placed “the principles of our liberal and democratic constitution on its head,” said the Bundeswehr. But less than two years later, Veith’s proposal is being put into action, at least in part.

The Bavarian State Regiment relies on three existing reserve units: the Upper, Middle and Lower Franconia companies of the so-called Regional Security and Support Services (RSU). There are 27 such companies nationwide. Reservists include former soldiers who have retired from active duty but remain at the disposal of the Bundeswehr and, recently, specially recruited men and women between the ages of 25 and 55, who are being trained in a crash course as “soldiers lite.”

The RSU units are trained for domestic tasks that are forbidden for the Bundeswehr according to the constitution. These include “monitoring and ensuring the safety of the German air and sea areas,” “securing domestic military installations”, as well as deployment in a “domestic emergency.” In addition to natural disasters and particularly serious incidents, these emergencies include uprisings, strikes and protests that endanger the state order.

The reserve units are therefore also intended to be used as a kind of National Guard for counterinsurgency purposes. In forming the state regiments, they will receive a stronger, centralized command structure and be linked more closely with the Bundeswehr.

Colonel Stefan Helmut Berger, the first commander of the state regiment, was “extremely happy” to take on a new mission “for the homeland” and welcomed this “further opportunity for a serious reserve force. For example, the reservists have done very good preparatory work in the past 10 years in establishing the KVKs and BVKs.”

The abbreviations KVK and BVK refer to District and Regional Commands, which already exist in all federal states, and are deployed in disasters or major incidents. They would form a link between civil protection and the Bundeswehr.

The head of the Bavarian State Chancellery, Florian Herrmann, bragged about the special role of Bavaria in the pilot project, “For Bavaria, as the top reservist state, one thing is clear: we want to make better use of the reserve’s potential.”

The Bavarian state government has been campaigning for domestic Bundeswehr operations for years. It has been involved in several civil war exercises in recent years, such as: GETEX (Joint Counter Terrorism Exercise), BAYTEX and the 2017 nationwide anti-terror exercise, in which heavily armed soldiers trained to collaborate with the police in the inner cities.

The construction of a Homeland Security force is not limited to Germany. Similar developments already exist in France, Poland, Sweden, Denmark and the Baltic States. All these countries are building up national reservist troops for domestic deployment to prepare for future uprisings.

Since the 2015 terrorist attacks in France, an 85,000-strong National Guard has been created to take over the army’s domestic operations. Since the end of March, President Emmanuel Macron has been using soldiers against the “yellow vests” who take to the streets against social inequality and the “president of the rich”. The Paris military governor, General Bruno Leray, threatened that his soldiers would also use live ammunition if necessary.

In Germany, the “Bavarian State Regiment” pilot project is part of a comprehensive upgrade of all state organs—the military, the police and the secret services—and the deliberate strengthening of extreme right-wing forces. These include the new police laws in the individual federal states, the financial, personnel and material upgrades of the police and intelligence services and the construction of camps and detention centres for refugees.

The use of the Bundeswehr and the reservist associations domestically violates the constitution. The German constitution expressly excludes domestic army operations, with the exception of “natural disasters” or “particularly serious incidents”, such as the devastating 2013 Elbe flood. However, they have been practised for years and are constantly being expanded.

For example, the “new Bundeswehr Concept”, which the grand coalition presented last summer, states: “With regard to the threats in the ‘global commons,’ as well as hybrid threats in cyberspace, national and spatial boundaries, the strict separation of internal and external security is losing its significance.”

The paper, which advocates the permanent deployment of the Bundeswehr domestically and the collaboration of the military and the police, is also supported by the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Greens. The first joint exercises by the Bundeswehr and police in Germany not only had the backing of Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen (CDU), but also the then North Rhine-Westphalia state Interior Minister Ralf Jäger (SPD) and Baden-Württemberg state premier Winfried Kretschmann (Greens).

The ban on Bundeswehr domestic missions was one of the lessons drawn from the Weimar Republic and the Nazi regime. The Reichswehr (Imperial Army) together with paramilitary combat units, the secret service and police had formed a state-within-the-state. Among other things, the assassination of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht and the bloody suppression of the Munich Soviet Republic took place exactly 100 years ago as a result of this “deep state.”

After defeating the Munich Soviet Republic, the Guards Cavalry Rifle Division moves into Munich. (Photo: Federal Archives)

Between April to May 1919 in Munich, the Freikorps (Free Corps) brutally rampaged and murdered thousands of revolutionaries and also ordinary workers. Bavaria became an El Dorado for all types of Freikorps and military associations. They operated under the protection of the reactionary Bavarian state premier Gustav Ritter von Kahr, and the Social Democratic federal government of Ebert/Scheidemann in Berlin with their Wehrbeauftragte (Parliamentary Armed Forces Commissioner) Gustav Noske (SPD). This paved the way for other far-right formations, such as the Stahlhelm (Steel Helmets) and Nazi Sturmabteilung (SA), and finally Hitler’s seizure of power.

With the establishment of the state regiment in Bavaria, the federal grand coalition government of the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats is completely abandoning these lessons. In the death agony of capitalism, it is increasingly resorting to authoritarian methods to arm itself against the resistance of working people.

Wild red deer help conservation

This 2013 video says about itself:

Red Deer Rut/Mating Season. Sir David Attenborough‘s opinion

This is a clip from “RHYTHMS OF NATURE IN THE BARYCZ VALLEY” movie. This film tells the story about nature in the Barycz River valley and enormous Milicz ponds. This area is located in the south-western part of Poland (in the middle of Europe).

I and my wife made it for 2 years. Sir David Attenborough, a world-famous BBC nature documentary film maker, after watching the film “Rhythms of Nature in the Barycz Valley” wrote: “I have viewed Rhythms of Nature with great pleasure. A lovely place, beautifully filmed”.

From the University of Göttingen in Germany:

Wild red deer contribute to the preservation of open landscapes

May 9, 2019

Similar to farm animals such as cattle or sheep, wild red deer grazing in open landscapes can also contribute to the conservation of protected habitats. This was demonstrated by a research team from the University of Göttingen and the Institute for Wildlife Biology of Göttingen and Dresden. The results were published in the Journal of Applied Ecology.

The interdisciplinary research team, which involved the Divisions of Grassland Science and Wildlife Sciences of the University of Göttingen, conducted research over a period of three years at the Grafenwöhr Training Area, an army training base, in Bavaria. “This area is home not only to numerous protected habitats and rare species, but also to a large population of free-ranging red deer,” says Friederike Riesch, PhD student in the Division of Grassland Science at the University of Göttingen and first author of the study. Since the animals are only hunted on a few days a year in the non-forested areas of the training area, they can use the grassland and heathland areas all day for foraging. The scientists recorded above-ground plant growth, forage quality and forage removal by red deer in protected grassland and heath habitats. The result: the proportion of plant growth eaten by wild red deer is comparable to that of extensive grazing by farm livestock.

While the forage removal of the red deer was highest in spring in grassland, the heaths were grazed most intensively in winter. These different seasonal patterns fit well with the different grazing requirements of vegetation communities in grassland and heath and contribute to both habitat types benefiting from red deer. “Our results could give an impetus to adapt wildlife management — especially in large nature reserves — to enable red deer to use open landscapes all day for foraging,” says Riesch. “In this way, a contribution can be made to the conservation of semi-natural open land habitats and at the same time the risk of damage from red deer in commercial forests can be reduced,” adds co-author Dr Bettina Tonn, also from the Division of Grassland Science at the University of Göttingen.

The project was funded by the Landwirtschaftliche Rentenbank and supported by Bundesforst.

Neo-nazi paramilitary gang in Amberg, Germany

NPD paramilitarists in Amberg, Gemany

This photo is about the NPD neo-nazi paramilitary gang in Amberg town in Germany.

From daily The Independent in Britain, 4 January 2018:

Far-right vigilante groups have reportedly started patrolling the streets of a German town …

So-called “neighbourhood defence groups”, sent by the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party (NPD), had been seen patrolling in yellow vests in Amberg, the town’s mayor told local newspaper Mittelbayerische Zeitung.

The Independent claims ‘in yellow vests’. However, the photo shows that the nazi paramilitary men in fact wore black and pinkish vests. This is confounding the international anti-austerity yellow vest movement, including many people of colour, eg, in Paris, in the French colony Réunion, in Iraq, and among demonstrators against the dictatorship in Sudan, with racist nazis.

This tweet shows demonstrating anti-dictatorship Sudanese wearing yellow vests.

Yellow Vests movement in Haiti: here.

French Yellow vests spokeswoman Priscillia Ludosky

This photo shows French Priscillia Ludosky, often interviwede as Yellow Vests spokeswoman.

By Marianne Arens and Peter Schwarz in Germany:

Scuffles in German city of Amberg exploited to incite right-wing campaign

5 January 2019

The neo-Nazis are supported by large sections of the state apparatus and are being deliberately strengthened and encouraged”, states the foreword of the book Why Are They Back? by Christoph Vandreier, deputy leader of the Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei, which was published last year in German by Mehring Verlag. Anyone who doubts this assessment should look at the reaction to the alleged excessive outbursts of violence by asylum seekers in the town of Amberg.

In the town, located in eastern Bavaria, four drunk teenagers between the ages of 17 and 19 allegedly attacked and beat passers-by. Twelve people reportedly suffered light injuries as a result, including a 17-year-old who received brief treatment in hospital due to a head wound.

Drunken teenagers getting into fights, and attacking bystanders is a regular occurrence in Germany and usually doesn’t even merit a mention in the local press. “The reaction is totally overblown”, Amberg mayor Michael Cerny, a [conservative] Christian Social Union politician, was compelled to admit to Spiegel Online. Due to the fact that asylum seekers were involved in the case, it was massively exaggerated by the national media.

Although the specifics of what took place remain unclear, politicians from Bavaria and Berlin have been lining up to outdo each other with proposals for more restrictive asylum laws. Federal Interior Minister Horst Seehofer (CSU) demanded, “When asylum seekers commit violent crimes, they must leave our country! If existing laws don’t allow for this, they must be changed.”

State secretary Stefan Mayer (CSU) called for the stricter isolation of rejected asylum seekers who could not be immediately deported, and raised the possibility of using residency requirements, and forcing asylum seekers to report regularly to the authorities, or wear electronic tags.

Although Bavaria’s Interior Minister Joachim Hermann (CSU) was forced to acknowledge that deportation was not legally possible in any of the Amberg cases, he insisted, “We are pulling out all the stops to change that.”

The ever-present police ideologist Rainer Wendt also spoke out, accusing the youths, whom he doesn’t know and has never met, of harboring “a deep hatred for our state and the people who live here.”

As was to be expected, this reaction has encouraged neo-Nazis to come to the fore. The right-wing extremist Nationaldemokratische Partei (NPD) called for the establishment of a citizens’ army in Amberg and published pictures with the demand on Facebook. The pictures show NPD supporters wearing high-visibility vests with the slogan, “We create safe spaces”, while patrolling through the streets.

Thus far, virtually nothing is known about what occurred on the evening in question in Amberg. Almost all of the reports stem from one and the same source, a press report from the Bavarian police presidium. This extremely vague report is based on statements from a train passenger at Amberg station, who phoned the police after allegedly being attacked by one of the suspects.

The report continued, “At the scene of the operation, it was revealed that attacks took place on passers-by inside and in front of the train station.” The police then arrested four young men as suspects at 9 p.m. The report continued, “In the course of a thorough investigation, it emerged that, contrary to initial reports, three other people reported being injured.”

The report is full of vague sentences, including phrases like “it was revealed” and “it emerged that.” Inexplicably, the initial reference is to a single suspect, but later the talk is of “four young male suspects,” including drunken “Afghan, Syrian, and Iranian citizens.” Subsequent reports merely speak of “persons from Afghanistan and Iran.”

The online edition of Focus magazine reported that it had been able to contact the train passenger who phoned the police. The magazine introduced him as Marco Steck, a landscape gardener and occasional security guard. Focus described the 26-year-old as “powerfully built and stocky like a wrestler […] Anyone who sees Marco Steck standing on the platform in Amberg would find it hard to believe that someone would want to pick a fight with him.”

His friends were also allowed to speak, even though none of them witnessed the incident. A soldier named Marcel said he was sitting “just around the corner in a pub”, and expressed regret at not being on the scene at the right moment.

The question is posed: are those the only witnesses to the case? Soldiers who weren’t even present, and a young man working part-time as a security guard? Is it conceivable that the young men were not only drunk, but also provoked? Given the reports of right-wing extremist networks among soldiers and the police, such a hypothesis is by no means far-fetched.

It is certainly not a case of a sensational “orgy of violence”, as Die Welt, Focus, and Münchner Merkur are now writing. Several hundred police operations took place in the same district during the days around New Year’s Eve. In one case, a 37-year-old German citizen inflicted life-threatening injuries on two Bulgarians with a knife. It is not hard to imagine what would have happened if the perpetrator had been an asylum seeker.

Shortly after the scuffles in Amberg, a 50-year-old man deliberately drove his vehicle into pedestrians in the cities of Bottrop and Essen. When he was arrested by the police, the man said he wanted to kill foreigners. Eight people, including a 4-year-old boy and a 10-year-old girl, were injured, with one woman suffering serious injuries.

Even though this was no mere scuffle, but attempted murder, both cases have only been referred to in passing. Interior Minister Seehofer told the Bild newspaper that it was a matter of “political credibility to deal with both cases thoroughly and firmly.” However, he made no reference to “excessive violence” with regard to the events in Bottrop and Essen.

Like the events in Cologne on New Year’s Eve three years ago, which were also hugely exaggerated, the campaign over Amberg serves to strengthen extreme right-wing forces and establish a police state, which is directed not merely against refugees, but the entire working class.

The social divisions in society are becoming ever deeper and the ruling elite is preparing for new wars. The federal government’s coalition agreement calls for an increase in defence spending to 2 percent of GDP, which amounts to some €70 billion. The ruling elite can only suppress the mounting opposition to social inequality and militarism by resorting to violent means. That is why they are strengthening the far-right and the repressive state apparatus.

Big pro-refugee demonstration in Munich, Germany

This 22 July 2018 video, by the (conservative) German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, is about a big demonstration, big though it was raining cats and dogs, in Munich, Bavaria today against the crackdown on immigration and refugees by German Interior Minister Seehofer. One of the slogans at the demonstration said “Souvlaki [originally Greek immigrants’ dish] statt Seehofer“. Another banner said: ‘No to war‘.

Translated from Dutch NOS TV:

Tens of thousands in Munich on the move against harsher immigration policy

Today, 17:45

In Munich, some tens of thousands of people have demonstrated against the rightward turn in politics and the harsh crackdown on immigrants. The protest was mainly aimed at the asylum policy of the CSU, the sister party of the CDU of Chancellor Merkel.

According to the police there were over 20,000 protesters, but the organizers say almost 50,000. The slogan of the demonstration was “#ausgehetzt – together against the politics of fear“.

More than one hundred organizations, churches and trade unions had called for the demonstration. They blame CSU leader [and federal interior minister] Seehofer, Bavarian Prime Minister Söder and CSU MPs Group Chairman Dobrindt for “an irresponsible policy of sowing divisions”. Seehofer had a conflict with Merkel because he wanted a much harsher asylum policy. They recently concluded a compromise.

According to the organizations, hatred and discrimination are increasing by a rightward turn in society and in the government and there is an attack on freedom and human rights. The demonstration was peaceful.

Munich demonstration, EPA photo

The sign on the foreground of this photo of the Munich demonstration says, translated: ‘Together against the politics of fear’.

‘Dutch right-wing government politicians, stop promoting xenophobia’: here.

Theocracy in Bavaria, Germany

This video about Germany says about itself:

Cardinal Marx condemns Bavaria decision to hang crosses in all public buildings

1 May 2018

‘If the cross is just seen as a cultural symbol, then it has not been understood’, Marx said. The enactment of a decision to hang crosses in all public buildings in Bavaria has triggered “Division, stirred up trouble and played people off against one another”, Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich, the president of the German bishops’ conference told the ‘Süddeutsche Zeitung’ on 30 April. Bavaria last week ordered all government buildings to display a cross at their entrance.

Apparently, the CSU party government in Bavaria is more fanatically Roman Catholic than Cardinal Marx or than the pope (at least the present pope; I am not so sure about his predecessor Ratzinger). It looks like the CSU is scared of losing right-wing voters to the Islamophobic neo-fascist AfD party in this year’s elections. That is also why they are making Bavaria a police state.

Translated from Dutch NOS TV today:

Cross from tomorrow on mandatory in Bavarian government buildings

A Christian cross, visibly hung at the entrance. From tomorrow on , this will be mandatory in every government building in the German state of Bavaria. The Kreuzpflicht, on which there is much criticism, also from Christian tendencies, comes from the brain of state premier Markus Söder (CSU), who wants to emphasize the cultural values ​​of Germany. …

There is a lot of criticism of the cross obligation. For example, Söder is said to have established the rule in response to the rising popularity of the anti-immigration party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). In October there are state elections. Söder is said to mainly use the cross to win voters from the right-wing, who believe that immigration from Muslim countries harms the German identity.

Cross is not folklore

There are also many disapproving reactions from Christian sides. Leaders of the Catholic Church believe that the obligation to have crosses leads to division. “The cross is a truly religious symbol and should not be reduced to folklore and regional use”, said the Roman Catholic Bishop Franz Jung in an interview. According to Jung, Söder is responsible for “division, unrest and fighting”.

Mandatory crosses are a mistake, says the Protestant religious scholar Johanne Harberer. “We have enough crosses in Bavaria, Söder abuses the religious symbol.”

The obligation to have crosses applies to all government buildings, but not to all government agencies. Only a recommendation applies to museums, universities and theaters. There are already crosses in courtrooms and many classrooms, writes Die Welt daily.

Just three months after taking office, the fourth government of Angela Merkel is facing possible dissolution. A fierce conflict over refugee policy between the conservative sister parties, Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU), threatens to blow apart the Grand Coalition, which also includes the Social Democratic SPD. This could also mean the end of the chancellorship of Merkel, who has been German head of government since November 2005: here.

Big pro-civil liberties demonstration in Germany

This 10 May 2018 video is called Demonstration against the new law on police tasks in Bavaria.

By Markus Salzmann in Germany:

Munich: 40,000 demonstrate against new police law

15 May 2018

Last Thursday, more than 40,000 people demonstrated in Munich against the new Bavarian Police Law (PAG). Organizers of the demonstration and the city administration had expected about 7,000 participants, but more and more people are no longer prepared to tolerate the construction of a police state and unrelenting attacks on basic democratic rights.

Thousands have already taken to the streets in recent weeks in the Bavarian cities of Nuremberg, Erlangen and Regensburg, to demonstrate against the extension of police powers and the assault on civil liberties.

Due to the high number of protesters, the planned starting rally at Munich’s Marienplatz had to be cancelled and the city centre was closed to traffic. Participants travelled from all over Bavaria and also came from other German states. Especially prominent in the protest in the Bavarian state capital were young people. The demonstration was organised by the so-called “noPAG” alliance, which includes political parties, trade unions, lawyers associations, the Bavarian Association of Journalists and a number of other organisations.

The law introduced by the conservative Christian Social Union (CSU) is due to be adopted on Tuesday in the Bavarian state parliament, despite much criticism of its provisions. The Society for Freedom (GFF) and a former federal interior minister, Gerhart Baum (FDP), plan to lodge constitutional lawsuits against the new law.

Lawyers refer to the law as the toughest piece of German police legislation since 1945. “The character of the police will change completely, we will see police with powers that have not existed since 1945”, was the conclusion drawn by the renowned constitutional lawyer Hartmut Wächtler.

The PAG is indeed unprecedented in Germany’s history since the fall of the Nazi regime. The powers of the police are to be massively expanded, and they will also be empowered to carry out extensive surveillance and intelligence operations.

Until now the police could only carry out measures to prevent crime if they had indications of a “concrete danger”—now an “imminent danger” is enough. Previously the police needed concrete evidence or even a legal warrant in order to monitor a person or a group and proceed against them. According to the new law, mere suspicion is sufficient.

The PAG enables the police to conduct nationwide surveillance without any significant restrictions. Police can film demonstrations even if criminal offences are not expected. They can take “overview photos” and compare them with existing files. The law permits the use of “systems for the automatic recognition and evaluation of patterns related to objects and the behaviour of persons.”

In future, police officers will wear bodycams on their uniforms which will run continuously. A legal regulation for the preservation of recordings does not exist, meaning the tapes can be stored and used as long as desired.

This is aimed at creating the legal basis for facial recognition. As is already the case in Berlin, facial recognition programs in public spaces are also on the agenda for Bavaria.

The surveillance of private data on computers is in future to be permitted for “preventive” purposes and without concrete suspicion of a possible offence, using so-called Trojan software. The technology can also be used to collect and store remote data, i.e., when the data is stored in the “cloud.” Data can also be manipulated or deleted.

Police will also be able to confiscate parcels and letters without judicial authorisation, once again in the case of so-called “imminent danger.” This completely eliminates existing provisions regarding postal secrecy. At the same time, the police can interfere with telecommunications and “interrupt or stop communication links through the use of technical means” without any evidence pointing to a criminal offence.,

A central element of the PAG is cooperation by police with other state agencies. In future, personal data can transmitted at any time to the secret services in Germany and also other countries—once again in the absence of any concrete evidence of a crime.

The police will be able to carry out their own intelligence operations, working with undercover investigators using false identities, again without a court order. Such agents can then spy on discussions in social networks or in the meetings of political groups.

The PAG is the latest stage in a massive domestic rearmament program. In July last year, the state government introduced so-called “infinity custody”, according to which suspects can be detained for up to three months, after which a judge must again decide whether to extend his sentence. There is no longer any maximum time limit. An actual crime does not have to have been committed.

The state government reacted with open contempt for the “noPAG” participants and their right to demonstrate. Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann (CSU) accused critics of the PAG of propagating “lying propaganda” and accused them of “misleading inexperienced people”. Government politicians reaffirmed their determination to enforce the law in all circumstances, regardless of the broad opposition.

The “noPAG” demonstration was joined by the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the Greens, the Left Party and even the Free Democrats (FDP), who are all looking for votes in the upcoming Bavarian state election. In fact, these parties are involved in adopting similar legislation at a federal level and in those states where they rule. The Bavarian Police Law serves as a role model.

The Bavarian PAG was drafted under the leadership of the former state premier Horst Seehofer (CSU), who now leads the Interior and Home Office in the grand coalition government. Seehofer is a militant advocate of a “strong state” and has the full support of the SPD. Following Seehofer’s inauguration as interior minister at the end of March, Eva Högl declared in the Bundestag, on behalf of the SPD parliamentary group: “Mr. Seehofer, we look forward to working with you.” Together “with the federal states” the SPD sought to “better equip the police, the judiciary and the security authorities.”

In the state of Saxony, where the SPD governs together with the CDU, the draft of a police law similar to that in Bavaria already exists. And in North Rhine-Westphalia, where an alliance of CDU and FDP heads the state government, a similar draft is to be decided upon. …

The drive to build a police state has its roots in growing social contradictions and the return to militarism in Germany. Such an agenda is incompatible with democracy. The ruling class is again preparing to suppress the class struggle and political resistance by force.

Seehofer-Merkel conflict on asylum seekers: here.

Last Saturday, 20,000 workers and young people marched from Düsseldorf Central Station to the North Rhine-Westphalian state parliament to protest the new police law planned by the state government: here.

Demonstration against militarist conference in Munich, Germany

Anti-militarist demonstration against conference in Munich, Germany

From daily The Morning Star in Britain:

Monday, February 19, 2018

Thousands protest against Munich security summit

OVER 2,000 demonstrators braved driving snow to demonstrate against the Nato summit in Munich on Saturday.

Peace campaigners carried banners saying: “No to War” and “Peace not Weapons” at the rally, which saw flags from socialist and anarchist groups fly alongside those of Pax Christi and Kurdish solidarity campaigners protesting at the Turkish invasion of Afrin.

They were outnumbered two to one by police officers surrounding the summit in a ring of steel.

The demo was called by the Alliance for Action against the Nato Security Conference (though the conference is not technically a Nato event), which demanded “an immediate halt to all arms exports, the withdrawal of Germany from Nato and the EU’s military structures and the dissolution of all Nato and US bases in Germany.

“War must never again be launched from German soil”, the organisers said in a statement. “But the federal armed forces are now participating in 13 foreign interventions.”

Nato demands that Germany spend more on arms were unjustifiable when funds were “urgently needed for education, health, public housing, municipal infrastructure, environmental conservation and the integration of refugees”, they said.

Munich Security Conference threatens war on all fronts: here.

France and Germany called for unified EU military at Nato summit: here.

The interventions of German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen and Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel at the Munich Security Conference reveal what the central task of a future grand coalition government will be—namely, the return of Germany to militarism and great power politics, which led in the last century to two world wars and the most terrible crimes in human history: here.

Report by German armed forces commissioner prompts calls for rearmament: here.

German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen made clear in a recent interview with the Passauer Neue Presse what the central tasks of Germany’s incoming government would be. A new instalment of the grand coalition will launch a major rearmament programme and press ahead with the return of German militarism to the world stage: here.

Barely in office, the grand coalition of Christian Democrats and Social Democrats is pushing ahead with its military upgrade plans. Eighteen major contracts, each exceeding the €25 million hurdle, and which must therefore be approved by the Parliamentary Budget Committee, should be awarded this year to the defence industry: here.

Munich knife attack, terrorism or not?

This video from Germany says about itself:

21 October 2017

An unidentified knifeman has attacked and wounded several people in downtown Munich, local police reported, adding that the perpetrator is still at large.

Meanwhile, the perpetrator is no longer at large, the suspect has been arrested.

From Reuters news agency, 21 October 2017:

German police rule out terrorism in Munich knife attack

That knife attacker had injured eight people.

According to daily The Independent, the perpetrator is ‘a blonde man in his 40s’.

I have the feeling that if the attacker would not have blonde, but black hair and/or would have been called Muhammad and/or would have been a refugee, police in Bavaria would not have declared that soon that he was not a terrorist.

Anti-refugee ‘super Berlin’ wall in Germany

This 10 November 2016 German video is about the four meter high wall anti-refugee wall in Neuperlach near Munich.

By Anna Rombach in Germany:

German city builds four-metre-high wall in front of refugee shelter

22 November 2016

The building of a four-metre (13-foot) high wall in front of a refugee shelter in a Munich suburb has provoked consternation and outrage. Criticism has been directed not only against the Munich politicians responsible, but also the reactionary refugee and war policies of the grand coalition (Christian Democratic and Social Democratic) government in Berlin.

For two years, seven residents of an owner-occupied development in the Neuperlach district of Munich have been blocking the construction of a refugee shelter. They justified their actions by citing expected noise nuisance due to the 160 unaccompanied minors and young asylum seekers who would move into the home.

The sinister “compromise solution” of the Administrative Court is the construction of a massive stone wall that separates the residential area from the refugees.

Its huge mass is reminiscent of a prison wall. Even for a sound-protection barrier it is over-sized. Nearby there is another facility for refugees, which, despite being only 50 metres from the autobahn, has just a three-metre-high noise barrier.

Guido Bucholtz, a member of the Ramersdorf-Perlach district council and former Green Party member, said he was shocked when he saw the wall at the beginning of November. He uploaded a video clip of it onto the Internet, triggering a wave of protests. “How can things be like this here, that we have to build a wall between refugees and residents using the transparent argument of noise protection,” Bucholtz told the Deutsche Presse-Agentur. “This is a signal: The refugees are sealed off because we don’t want to have them anyway.”

Media interest rapidly developed. Thousands criticized the building of the wall on social media, which runs diametrically against previous practices in Munich. Many Neuperlach residents were also shocked.

“Madness,” “It looks like what happened under Hitler,” “Like the Berlin Wall,” “Like World War II,” “Terrible,” “Horrible” and “Impossible,” were some comments made by Neuperlach residents on YouTube.

Many have pointed out that the wall is higher than the Berlin Wall (3.6 metres). Others have noted that the trees and bushes next to the refugee home provide enough sound damping, and that a cycle path and footpath also separate the home from adjacent properties. The houses are approximately 25 meters from the boundary marked by a planted embankment.

Numerous media outlets have reported on the dispute in Munich, including newspapers (and also right-wing web sites) in England, France, Austria, Italy and the US. Some of them have used the xenophobic example for their own propaganda purposes. …

The broadcaster Bayrische Rundfunk took the anti-immigrant residents’ side, and argued that the value of their homes could fall as a result of the new shelter. Security was also at risk: “An elderly woman expressed grave fears because she was walking alone on the pavement at night.”

By contrast, an online petition against the wall on received thousands of signatures in no time. It is addressed to Mayor Dieter Reichert (Social Democratic Party, SPD), the Munich City Council and the Bavaria Higher Administrative Court. It says: “The wall 2.0 is a disgrace for Germany and even more so for the otherwise cosmopolitan and multicultural Munich.”

In 2015, many Munich inhabitants welcomed harassed and exhausted refugees, spending days and nights at the city’s main railway station to greet the new arrivals and providing them with whatever they needed after their long journey. These residents were subsequently disappointed that their assistance and efforts were not better utilised and the authorities soon sent them home.

Munich’s City Council saw heated debates. The Greens have responded to the protests and are now calling for the demolition of the wall. The SPD is torn on the issue, since its leader in the state legislature, Markus Rinderspacher, described the wall as “a symbol of separation and isolation.”

Thomas Kauer (Christian Social Union, CSU), chair of the Ramersdorf-Perlach district council, claimed that it was merely a matter of noise abatement and was not an attack on refugees: “I won’t let our district get a bad reputation.”

Politicians of all parties are seeking to conceal the real cause of the refugees’ misery. For example, none of them point to the obvious connection between the large numbers of refugees and the imperialist war policies of the Western powers, including Germany, in the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Africa.

The official discourse also covers up the role played by the establishment parties and media when it comes to stoking up fears and hostility toward people fleeing war and poverty. The media throws up examples like New Year’s Eve in Cologne, and the false allegations of criminal activity by immigrants, to whip up divisions in the population. The wall in Neuperlach is an opportunity for the establishment mouthpieces to shift responsibility for the government’s xenophobic policies onto the backs of the population.

In reality, the resentment against refugees stems first and foremost from the operations of Germany’s establishment parties. They consciously stoke chauvinist sentiments and are responsible for the rise of right-wing movements. For example, Merkel said in September: “For the next few months, the most important thing is repatriation, repatriation and again repatriation.”

The SPD is singing the same tune, and attacks Merkel from the right. Ex-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder (SPD) attacked Merkel for her supposed welcoming culture earlier in the year. The SPD party chair, Sigmar Gabriel, sought to play off workers in Germany and refugees against each other when he commented: “We must be careful that there are not people in Germany who feel that the politicians in Berlin always have money when, for example, it is a matter of rescuing the banks, or now to help refugees.”

… The Green state premier of Baden-Württemberg, Winfried Kretschmann, agreed to the abolition of the right of asylum for refugees from Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. In the Bundesrat (Upper Chamber of the federal parliament), Kretschmann will also vote against asylum for Tunisians, Moroccans and Algerians. His party colleague Boris Palmer, mayor of Tübingen, declared that it was necessary to deport “violent” refugees even to Syria. “There are also areas in Syria that are not at war,” Palmer said.

On Thursday last week, a meeting of the Ramersdorf-Perlach district council took place—this time under police protection, as several houses belonging to those supporting the wall had been daubed with slogans such as “Nazi filth.” The CSU representatives Kauer and Markus Blume used this and tried to ostracise Bucholtz, the critic of the wall. In a foul attempt to silence opponents of the wall, they claimed he was responsible for setting the ball rolling and disturbing the peace and quiet of law-abiding citizens.