Peter Bofinger’s voucher stimulus is not well reflected

Over at ‘Social Europe’, German former member of the ‘The Five Wise Men‘, Peter Bofinger, mulls about “How to stimulate the economy after the lockdown“.

He believes that “a ‘helicopter money’ stimulus of direct payments to individuals, as in the US, would be neither well targeted nor transformatory in Europe“. Probably because the social security net is way better than in the US and, though he does not explicitly mention it, helicopter money is something of a difficult sell in Germany.

He suggests this stimulus should be well targeted and here he thinks “special attention should be paid to those sectors — hotels, restaurants and the stationary retail trade —hardest hit by the lockdown, alongside many self-employed people: hairdressers, masseurs, artists“.

The US recovery programme transferred $ 1,400 per person directly into their bank accounts, while “in Germany, this model was taken up by the Retailers’ Association, which called for a payment of €500 per citizen.

But on the above-mentioned criteria general government transfers do not score well. The biggest weakness is targeting. Chastened citizens may simply save the money, so the intended consumption effect will fizzle out. But even if the money is consumed, it is far from certain it will arrive where it is most urgently needed“, he says.

He instead suggests a voucher model. This is unfortunately not well thought through. Here is why. Cash is freely fungible, can be spent anywhere and almost at any time and spontaneously. Ask yourself, how many times did you go out without the intention of buying anything and came home with a purchase.

Now enter the voucher system. It should be time-limited, he says and that is important as we later see!

Let’s stick with three sectors he mentions for the sake of simplicity, hairdressers, masseurs, artists. Let’s even add restaurants and hotels. You now have received vouchers form the government for these services. There are many people who do not use the services of hairdressers, masseurs, artists, hotels. Quite a few people have electric hair cutters. Do you know anybody who visits a masseur? Visiting concerts in post-Corona times is also not exactly hot on the agenda of people when the way of transmitting the virus is still not clear and there is still a general anxiety. But you still do have these vouchers which are worth money and that is what Bofinger seems to have forgotten.

His voucher system will open a secondary market where people offer their voucher/s they do not need. That is the offer side. On the other side is the bid side. Remember, the vouchers are time-limited. So obviously a bidder would wait till the last moment of the validity of the voucher he is interested in and place his – low – bid. On Ebay, any social network, FB and what not. This is not what you want. This is anything but straightforward. It is a clumsy system where vouchers need to be printed, shipped to millions of recipients. Expect lost vouchers on the way. Sure, you could do it somehow digitally via the smartphone and be absolutely sure of hacks, fraud and scams.

The US way is sleek, fast, direct, controllable and the government just needs one ordinary thing, a keyboard. BTW, that’s what central banks use.

President of the EU Commission, von der Leyen, embarrasses President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on first trip to Turkey

If men do not watch out, women will take over. What happened?

On her first visit to Turkey the unelected president of the EU Commission, von der Leyen, committed an inexcusable diplomatic faux pas. She made herself comfortable on the opulent divan of the Sultan leaving the other two male and elected statesmen stranded. These noble gentlemen of Christian and Islamic faith were forced to take seat on lightly upholstered wooden chairs. How will the world ever grow together, find mutual understanding, perpetuate peace when such brazen blunders are being committed?

Men, the reading is on the sofa, err, wall.

Personal report about German Jobcenter and conniving courts to European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI)

Council of Europe
Avenue de l’Europe
F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex


cc BMAS, BMFSFJ, BMJV, Kanzleramt, SG, LSG, BSG, JC Munich, OLG Munich and the completely ridiculous window puppets at FADA

05. April 2021

To whom it may concern (1),

The following is an account of my/our personal experience in Germany and its internationally known institutional racism within the criminal government-funded Jobcenter Munich and assisted in this by the Social Court Munich and other Kangaroo Courts in Bavaria. I felt motivated after I had read your latest REPORT ON GERMANY, published on 17 March 2020, and deemed it appropriate to add a personal note in order to spice things up a little. Besides, racism needs names.

My daughter, born in Kathmandu, is of Tibetan/German parentage – IOW in clumsy German parlance a ‘migrant’ – and started attending school in Germany from the age of nine in 2005. She graduated in 2013 and then switched over to the Fachoberschule where she earned the so-called Fachoberschulreife. Germans like to separate in classes. Typical as well for Germany, migrants are concentrated in certain concentrated schools so that they do not mix with pur sang Germans.

This can lead to entertaining linguistic twists bordering on the silly. As Reich’s TV ‘Tagesschau’ reported, an Expert Commission on Integration Ability recommends that the term “migration background” no longer be used in the future. Instead, the commission appointed by the federal government proposes to speak of “immigrants and their (direct) descendants”. Wittgenstein would shudder and I need to take a stiff drink. Right from the start I wish to express that the only thing German about me is that birth certificate. Apart from that, nothing whatsoever. When it comes to Germans I feel exactly like the late and best German movie director ever, R. W. Fassbinder (my apologies to the other Werner). He loathed Germans.

So here goes. To begin with, the Jobcenter Munich (in the following ‘JC’) refused to cover the school bus fare once my daughter started to attend the Fachoberschule. Higher education for migrants is looked upon as wasteful spending when plum jobs with low pay beckon. The JC, however, had much more in store and in this it was assisted with generous help from the Social Court Munich (in the following ‘SC’) and its blueprint, the Bavarian LSG (in the following ‘LSG’). The JC was headed till mid 2015 by the multiple racist criminal (coercion) Martina Musati (now BA in Stuttgart) and was followed by multiple racist criminal Anette Farrenkopf, and in Munich-Pasing it is Sabine Nowack.

  1. Two times the JC had legally earned money stolen from my daughter, in 2014 and 2017. Assisted by courts, and, not to forget, a lawyer in jurido-erotic relationships with the court and the opposing party (2). The Ugly Germans do it the proper legal way.

In 2014 my daughter started jobbing for some days during the week and some weeks during the summer vacation. This turned out to be a mistake as the JC claimed money she had earned during the summer vacation of 2014. I had to turn to a lawyer as this money was legally earned. In this case S 42 AS 515/15 “Judge” Ehegartner showed no interest whatsoever over all those years. Only due to my perseverance did the JC finally in 2020 agree to pay back € 200,-. Of course no interest was paid and so I had to file yet another suit which is pending.

2. Not done with that theft, the JC had yet a second time money earned during the summer vacation of 2015 stolen from my daughter. This time though way more intelligent and devious. There is a learning process going on in that federal criminal entity and the social courts. Assisted in this heinous act by none other than the SC and the LSG courts. The judges names at the LSG are Ocker, Braun and Karl. All three fancy to wear some belly button glitter, aka a doctor title in law.

In this case S 42 AS 2594/16 “judge” Ehegartner of the SC in association with the JC suppressed two documents sent by Gmail (proof exists). Those documents show it was a vacation job. Suppression of documents is a criminal act according to section 274 StGB.

The LSG (case L 15 AS 551/19) as well resorted to suppression of these two documents although I had their existence expressly mentioned in my complaint and verbally as well during the court hearing on Oct. 1, 2019. The protocol fails to mention any of this! At the beginning of the session, I demanded the hearing to be postponed due to the fact that the court had failed to provide the names of the judges (Article 101 Basic Law). It should be mentioned that the invitation to the court hearing was addressed to my daughter! This was denied and the judges had the audacity to call my/her request “abuse of law”. Judges in Germany do not even realize their racism, it is in their DNA. Their class bias is palpable, particularly in the province of Bavaria.

When I contacted the Federal Social Court (BSG), I received one response and after that they decided it is better to stay quiet (B 4 AS 66/20 C). The BSG is supervised by whom? The neoliberal Ministry of Labor BMAS. Go figure.

It gets even better in the corrupt country Germany. I learned via The Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (BfDI) in a letter dated Dec. 15, 2020 that the JC claims it never received those two emails containing the documents. This was a completely new assertion, never mentioned in all those years, and a pretty stupid one at that. So in January 2021 I demanded to see the Email server logs. With letter of Feb. 10, 2021 the JC – and get this: none other than the Data Protection Officer Marija Weiß of the JC – refused access to those server logs. Now we know what data protection is all about. It protects civil servant criminals. No comment required. A request with the Munich public prosecutor went nowhere as expected.

3. Social Court deliberately inactive to force you to file Complaint of Inactivity and subsequently incur court fee of € 584.00.

In January 2017, my daughter received a threat of execution for the amount of € 290,- (that money from her vacation job 2015) from the Recklinghausen Employment Agency Collection Service of the Federal Agency for Labor. It says there:

You certainly do not want

  • the amount of the receivable to increase
  • your payment transactions to be affected by an attachment of your account
  • you are summoned to make a statement of assets and liabilities, which may be followed by an entry in the debtors’ register
  • or visits by the enforcement officer become necessary.

This is how these Ugly Germans operate. They make it very clear, you don’t comply, we wreck your credit rating and that right before you even enter the labor market. Capisce! So shut up and pay.

According to the Guiding principle of the Federal Social Court (BSG), judgment of 14.02.2018, B 14 AS 12/17 R, the following requirements must be met in order to pass on personal data:

“Without a transfer decision of the board of trustees of a joint institution pursuant to Social Code II that satisfies the principles of clarity of norms and freedom from contradiction, the transfer of sovereign powers to one of its trustees is invalid.”

“The transfer resolution pursuant to Section 44c (2) sentence 2 no. 4 SGB II must be worded in such a way that the nature and scope of the tasks to be transferred can be readily inferred from it itself.”

I requested that ‘transfer decision of the board of trustees’ from the JC in a suit filed with the SC in Oct. 2019 (Case S 42 AS 844/20). After a complaint of inactivity on May 19, 2020, “judge” & Aide de Camp of the JC, Ehegartner, dutifully referred the case to the LSG. The LSG demanded a court fee of € 584.00 + € 60.00 (Case L 8 SF 218/20 EK), required when one files a complaint of inactivity. Neat, isn’t it. The name of the LSG judge is Mrs. Hall. The Information Freedom Act (IFG) is basically worth zippo in Germany.

Anticipating their decision, I contacted the BfDI in this case and the JC began to move. Finally in Jan. 2021 I received the ‘transfer decision of the board of trustees’ in a Pdf document. That transfer decision was not signed and without any date! It was a plain, simple template. Unfortunately, the criminals at the JC were so stupid to forget (what every fairly professional criminal knows) to remove the meta data. These showed that the Pdf was generated from a MS Word document 2.5 hours before it was sent to me by email. Enough said. The threat of execution constitutes coercion.

4. Sublease contract of migrant is “not credible”.

In the case ‘sublease contract with my daughter’ (Case S 42 AS 1638/17) “judge” Ehegartner claimed I did not object against the JC decision of Nov. 2016. The sublease was signed in 2017 !!! In addition, he lamented the letter sent by me on May 19, 2019 to the SC with a copy of the email to the JC included a “not readable file ‘Untermietvertrag.jpg'” attached. This “judge” was misappropriating my letter of June 27, 2017 (Case S 51 AS 1420/17 ER). Attached there is a readable copy of the sub-lease. So for almost two years the court was aware of this document. Another case of suppression of documents (Section 274 StGB) and absolutely no qualms with German judges.

Yet it would not be the criminal JC if it could not come up with a new version. This time, Mrs. Strama of the JC claimed – yet again – not to have received my email with the contract attached. Strangely enough, Mrs. Preukschat of the JC called the contract in a response to the SC in typical racist manner “not credible”. Obviously the document exists and the JC has seen it. I demanded to see the email server log as well and it was refused! Criminals always follow a pattern and the Federal Ministry for Labor BMAS should insist that with a funding of 100 plus million Euros a year it can expect to see civil servants at the JC operate in professional criminal ways and that entails not contradicting each other.

5. “Judge” Ehegartner protects a civil servant criminal and full-blown idiot who used a false name with police.

The absolute highlight and bummer of a case happened in May 2016. The JC deputy managing director Jürgen Sonneck had the hare-brained idea to send a libelous criminal complaint to Munich police by email using the false name ‘C. Paucher’. Just google “Jürgen Sonneck, C. Paucher”, it is plain sickening. The sole purpose of this civil servant criminal creep was to inflict damage to derive in that typical German way Schadenfreude. In Nazi-style, police confiscated all our computer equipment including smartphone (smartphone without court order!). Had my daughter been at home, they would have taken hers as well. The Macbook of my daughter, who needed that for school, was weeks later returned deliberately damaged by Munich authorities. It can not be used anymore. In Jan. 2017 I had it shipped to the Ministry of Labor BMAS in Berlin with a letter attached. No response from the hideously fat then labor minister Nahles. Instead, it was sent to the Federal Criminal Agency BKA without giving any notice, as I learned three years later.

Regarding the case S 42 AS 992/18 – L 16 AS 509/20 NZB (tablet costs as a temporary replacement for the laptop), I demanded the summoning of the Bavarian civil servant Jürgen Sonneck alias C. Paucher with reference to section 445 ZPO. This “judge” did not respond in any form and rather resorted to protecting him. “Judge” Ehegartner and the LSG decided against the costs being covered by the JC.

6. “Judge” Ehegartner does not care about a law and suppresses a power of attorney of a migrant. Suppression of documents is his modus operandi.

In the case ‘placement budget’ (‘Vermittlungsbudget’) (Case S 42 AS 165/17 ) my lawsuit was discontinued in Oct. 2020, after “judge” Ehegartner dismissed the case with the statement, “action (is) unfounded for lack of legitimisation. The case concerns his daughter, which is why the lawsuit should have been filed by her in her own name. An interpretation to this effect is not possible” (see transcript of the SC from 23.10.2020).

This assertion is patently and deliberately false. Firstly, according to section 73, 6 and 7 SGG I am very well legitimated as father of my Tibetan daughter to represent her. Secondly, my daughter communicated the power of attorney to this “court” by fax dated Oct. 29, 2019. In her power of attorney my daughter expressly stated she “wishes no more to be contacted in these never ending disputes”. This document was deliberately suppressed by this “judge”, yet again! My lawyer applauded the decision!!! However, she is excused. She is on Pinterest social networking, ya know.

7. “Judge” Ehegartner wants a migrant on display, or settle her with a fine of € 1,000.

Migrant voyeurism anybody? Because “judge” Ehegartner is in for it. The level of antiquity, lack of sophistication, crudeness among judges, in particular Bavarian ones, is well known and ”judge” Ehegartner is not afraid of anything either. He cites my daughter, concerning her own lawsuit, under penalty of € 1,000.00 in case of her non-appearance before his Kangaroo Court. This can hardly be surpassed in primitivity, but is no surprise in Germany with its internationally known institutional racism.

8. “Judge” Ehegartner suppressed yet another communication concerning my daughter.

In the case S 42 AS 1398/16 concerning the Right of Access (Wahrnehmung des Umgangsrechts), which means the right of a child to visit one of her parents in case of separate domiciles. My case file expressly mentioned a communication with the head of the department responsible for such cases and my subsequent request to send me the form to apply for the assumption of costs. After that, communication plain stopped BTW! Nowhere is this mentioned in his decision. It should be mentioned that my wife took out a loan to cover the cost of an air ticket to Nepal so that our daughter could see her after 4 years! This “judge” did not care. He is in bed with the JC.

9. EU rights do not interest the JC at all.

The European Commission issued the following on the subject of data protection. You have the right to:

ask for incorrect, inaccurate or incomplete personal data to be corrected;

I informed the JC about this in August 2020 and requested the correction regarding the false statement of the JC that we did not send the two documents concerning the vacation job of my daughter. The EU Commission page further states:

If the company/organisation has a Data Protection Officer (‘DPO’) you may address your request to the DPO. The company/organisation must respond to your requests without undue delay and at the latest within 1 month. If the company/organisation doesn’t intend to comply with your request they must state the reason why.

There was no response from the criminal entity JC funded by BMAS.

All claims laid down here can be substantiated with documents.

It might be of interest that in three cases I finally took a lawyer. She turned out to be – it is impossible to put it any other way – a total pain in the ass and a waste of time. The lady is just a joke on two legs with a presence on Pinterest. Or with Jeremy Bentham, “Lawyers are the only persons in whom ignorance of the law is not punished”.

So far, I have filed ten complaints against this “judge” Ehegartner to get him dismissed on reasons of bias. All were thrown out because I just seem to be “not content with his decisions”. Quelle surprise.

I have lived a good deal of my life in S. Asia and experienced first and second hand the corruptest courts in loco. There is only a slight difference to German courts. German judges and prosecutors do not drape a towel over their chairs, do not have a room fan placed next to their desk, and do not have pens in a particular ink color.

The rhetorical question stands, how many migrants, who are/were not fully familiar with the German language and their rights, has this “judge” and this Kangaroo Court SC harmed in the disgusting racist country Germany with her insufferable Germans!

10. Munich public prosecutors don’t want to see anything, hear anything.

The Munich public prosecutors dismissed ALL my criminal complaints against the criminal civil servants of the Munich JC. In November 2020 I filed a criminal complaint with the Munich public prosecutor against JC Man. Dir. Farrenkopf for violation of Sections 44 (1) and 43 (1) BDSG with regard to the illegal transfer of personal data of my daughter to the Employment Agency Collection Service of the Federal Agency for Labor. Pursuant to Section 44 of the BDSG, anyone who commits an intentional act described in Section 43 (1) of the BDSG with the intention of enriching himself or another person or causing damage to another person shall be liable to prosecution. The prerequisite for criminal liability is that the act is committed intentionally.

The response in November 2020 of the Munich prosecutor referred to Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) Section 152 Prosecuting Authority; Principle of Legality

(2) Unless otherwise provided by law, it shall be obliged to intervene in respect of all prosecutable offences, provided there are sufficient factual indications.

and, correctly, saw no evidence of suppression of documents at this stage. That’s when I requested to see the email server logs from the JC, which they refuse to release. So we are looking at a Catch 22.

In the case ‘Sublease contract’ I filed a criminal complaint against JC civil servant Silke Strama with Munich public prosecutor in January 2021. So far no response. Quelle surprise.

In all cases the Federal Ministries of Justice and Labor including the completely ridiculous Family Minister Giffey were CC-ed by me. It was met with icy silence. The German way.

Furthermore, upon public notification of these events sent to the Federal Ministries, the neoliberal BMAS (Labor Ministry, incidentally partly operating out of former Nazi offices) and BMFSFJ (Ministry for Family Affairs) the Twitter handle @ErebusSagace was immediately blocked. One can clearly see the rampant corruption in Germany in the sordid saga of Wirecard and the international finance press, at the forefront the FT and Bloomberg, is just plain stunned but not surprised.

11. Corporate racism and the dress dolls at the FADA

It only completes the picture when the Rossmann drugstore chain refused access to an African couple to a shop in Northrhine Westfalia during the period of Corona restrictions and my emails sent to Rossmann AND the ludicrous dress dolls at FADA (3) in April 2020 remained unanswered.

Did I mention the Syrian refugee Tareq Alaows? After five years in The Reich he speaks excellent German. As the first Syrian refugee, the human rights activist wanted to enter parliament for the Green Party. But then there were … Oh for fuck’s sake, it is just so sickening with these Ugly Germans.

Before I extend a hearty Namaskar, I should perhaps mention that

the government funded criminals at the Jobcenter Munich tried to coax my daughter out of school into a pisser job in 2014.

That would be here and on the Interwebz like here. BTW, pictures not showing there were deleted by Google on intervention by the German government.


Doctorates awarded, if any, have been omitted with reference to Wittgenstein’s dislike of academic rituals and his congratulations on Norman Malcolm’s Ph.D. which he combined with a cutting criticism of academic life:

“My hearty congratulations on your Ph.D.! And may you now make good use of it! By this I mean: may you not deceive yourself or your students. For that is exactly what you will be expected to do, if I am not very much mistaken. And it will be very difficult & perhaps impossible not to; & may you have the strength to resign in that case.” (quoted from: ALLAN JANIK – Wider die Slumlords der Philosophie)



(1) I am well aware that “ECRI is not mandated to deal with individual complaints”. Never would I confuse the EU with anything democratic and neither would Perry Anderson in ‘Ever Closer Union?‘. Run by Germany, one has only to look into that country’s fairly recent past and Victor Hugo’s letter to Baudelaire springs to mind, although in a different sense, “… you give us a new kind of shudder”. But hey, I take the chance, perhaps it’s for the greater good.

(2) US-based lawyer Dan Hull wrote in an email to me on June 3, 2016: “Many German lawyers are assholes.” (What about Paris). Truer words were never spoken.

(3) While the ECRI report of March 17, 2020 correctly criticizes that “the FADA lacks the competence to intervene in the legislative procedure (§ 13j of GPR No. 2). It also lacks substantial competences with regard to the support and litigation function”, it fails to realize that this is not a bug but a feature. This is how things get sanitized in a democratic country that is high on pretensions.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Listed below are the contact details of the persons directly or indirectly involved:

1.Jobcenter im Sozialbürgerhaus Orleansplatz
Anette Farrenkopf
Orleansplatz 11
81667 München

2. Jobcenter im Sozialbürgerhaus Pasing
Sabine Nowack
Landsberger Straße 486
81241 München

3. Sozialgericht München
Präsidentin Edith Mente
Richelstraße 11
80634 München

4. Bayerisches Landessozialgericht
Präsident Günther Kolbe
Ludwigstraße 15
80539 München

5.Oberlandesgericht München
Präsident Peter Küspert
Nymphenburger Straße 16
80335 München

6. Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales (BMAS)
Wilhelmstraße 49
10117 Berlin

7. Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz
Mohrenstraße 37
10117 Berlin

8. Bundesministeriums für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend
Franziska Giffey with faked doctorate
Glinkastraße 24
10117 Berlin

Deutsche Bank says “A certain degree of eco-dictatorship will be necessary” to achieve climate neutrality

The two dominating slogans of the EU Commission and in particular von der Leyen are NextGenerationEU and climate neutrality by 2050. Lofty. On the latter DB Research has this to say in their paper ‘What we must do to rebuild‘. On page 9 they set the tone on what’s to come on 71:

Climate neutrality: Are we ready for an honest discussion?

The EU’s ambitious Green Deal wants to ensure that “nobody is left behind”. Sounds excellent, but it is not realistic unless we ask some difficult questions. Quite simply, Europe cannot become carbon neutral with existing technologies, and various new technologies are politically unacceptable in the current environment. Unless that changes, the alternative is restrictions, either on consumption or trade.

On page 71 they get more into details.

Inconvenient truths – inconvenient questions

Let’s face an inconvenient truth. Global energy demand is likely to rise further in the coming years, driven mainly by population growth (the world’s population grows by 80m people each year) and the desire for prosperity. Fossil fuels will remain the most important source of energy for now. Even according to the latest Sustainable Development Scenario of the International Energy Agency, which includes considerably more climate protection measures than those foreseen in the Paris Agreement, the share of fossil fuels in primary energy demand will still amount to 56 per cent in 2040. This is already a massive reduction from today’s 80 per cent. The SDS expects renewable energy sources to have a share of 35 per cent in total energy consumption; the biggest increases are expected in wind and solar power. In short, even in this optimistic scenario, renewable energies are far away from being the main pillar of global energy supply.

Being serious about openness to (new) technologies

One important question for the coming years is: Are we serious about being open to different (new) technological solutions? In the first place, we will have to recognise that all sources of energy come with specific risks and specific advantages and disadvantages in terms of economic efficiency, reliability, capability, and climate and environmental sustainability. These are the traditional corners of the energy policy triangle. There is also the question of whether certain technologies are politically acceptable.

Turning to economics, we will need to talk honestly about the costs of specific sources of energy. Fossil fuels are highly reliable and powerful, but their external costs are not adequately internalised yet. Carbon prices will need to be significantly higher than the political consensus currently allows. In the case of wind power and photovoltaics, pure electricity generation costs (which are declining) are only part of the picture. As weather-dependent sources of energy gain importance, investments in networks and power storage capacities will need to be increased. Cost-intensive network interventions will take place more frequently. Moreover, other suppliers (for example gas-fired power plants) will see their capacity utilisation decline if more electricity from wind and solar farms is fed into the grid. These system-wide costs of an increased reliance on renewable energies are often neglected.

Nuclear energy is a good example for difficulties in terms of political acceptance. Countries such as Germany are aiming to exit from nuclear energy, which comes with very low specific carbon emissions, simply because people/ politics do not accept it as a source of power. In contrast, nuclear energy remains an (important) pillar of the electricity sector in France, the US, China or Japan. These countries are also actively researching next-generation nuclear power options. The different stance on nuclear energy in Germany and France is probably one reason why the Green Deal does not mention nuclear energy at all.

Carbon capture storage and usage systems are quite unpopular in the EU, too. According to the IEA, however, we will need them for decarbonisation. The Green Deal also supports investments in this technology, even though CCS, at least, meets with considerable political resistance in countries such as Germany.

I would like to point out that these statements should not be taken as support for or rejection of any of these technologies. If, however, people are actually afraid that large parts of the planet may become uninhabitable due to climate change and if they really want to achieve climate neutrality, they should not reject technologies right away that may help to reach this goal, even if they involve certain risks. An honest debate about climate neutrality will need to include non- ideological risk assessments of different sources of energy and also an analysis of potential measures to adapt to climate change.

A certain degree of eco-dictatorship will be necessary

The impact of the current climate policy on people’s everyday lives is still quite abstract and acceptable for many households. Climate policy comes in the form of higher taxes and fees on energy, which make heating and mobility more expensive. Some countries have set minimum energy efficiency standards for buildings or similar rules in other areas. However, climate policy does not determine our lives. We take key consumption decisions, for example whether we travel at all, how much we travel and which means of transport we use, whether we live in a large house or a small apartment and how we heat our homes, how many electronic devices we have and how intensely we use them or how much meat and exotic fruit we eat. These decisions tend to be made on the basis of our income, not on climate considerations.

If we really want to achieve climate neutrality, we need to change our behaviour in all these areas of life. This is simply because there are no adequate cost-effective technologies yet to allow us to maintain our living standards in a carbon-neutral way. That means that carbon prices will have to rise considerably in order to nudge people to change their behaviour. Another (or perhaps supplementary) option is to tighten regulatory law considerably. I know that “eco- dictatorship” is a nasty word. But we may have to ask ourselves the question whether and to what extent we may be willing to accept some kind of eco-dictatorship (in the form of regulatory law) in order to move towards climate neutrality. Here is an example: What should we do if property owners do not want to turn their houses into zero-emission buildings; if they do not have the financial means to do so; if doing so is not possible for technical reasons or if the related investments do not pay off?

The whole paper is recommended.

Strafanzeige gegen Bundesjustizministerin Christine Lambrecht wegen Verleumdung von US Präsident Trump


Turmstraße 91
10559 Berlin

‘Mistrust all in whom the urge to punish is strong!
Mistrust all those who talk much about their justice!’

10. Jan. 2021

Ich erstatte Strafanzeige gegen

Bundesministerin Christine Lambrecht,
Behördenleiterin des Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz

wegen Verleumdung (§ 187 StGB) des amerikanischen Präsidenten Donald J. Trump und Verstoss gegen Art 5 GG.

Am 07. Januar 2021 twitterte die Behördenleiterin des BMJV, Christine Lambrecht, unmittelbar nach den Ereignissen im Capitol von Washington vom 06. Januar ihren Kommentar zur Blockierung des amtierenden (!) Präsidenten der USA, Donald J. Trump, auf Facebook und Twitter. Sie versieht diesen Tweet auch noch mit dem Hashtag “Demokratie”! Der Tweet lautet:

“Twitter und Facebook haben die Accounts des amtierenden US-Präsidenten Trump gesperrt. #Capitol #Demokratie
Dass Twitter und Facebook Trumps Flut der Lügen jetzt unterbrechen, ist eine viel zu späte Einsicht. Wut, Hass und Aggression waren viel zu lange ein Teil des Geschäftsmodells, mit dem die Plattformen reich geworden sind. Wir werden in Europa verbindliche Pflichten für die Internetplattformen schaffen, um Wahlen zu schützen, Hetze zu löschen und gegen Lügen konsequent vorzugehen.
Christine Lambrecht, Bundesministerin der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz”

Diese sozialistische Ministerin unterstellt dem amtierenden amerikanischen Präsidenten Donald J. Trump DIREKT NACH den Vorfällen im Capitol zu Washington vom 06. Jan. 2021, er hätte Hetze und Aggression geschürt in seiner Rede vom gleichen Tag. Implizit beschuldigt sie ihn damit zur Aufstachelung und macht ihn verantwortlich für die Vorfälle im Capitol. Es steht ausser Zweifel, sie hat es nicht für nötig befunden, Trumps Rede überhaupt zu lesen.

Damit begeht diese durchtriebene Bundesministerin genau das, was sie Trump vorwirft: sie lügt schäbig und genau, wie man es von einem Politiker erwartet. Hier ist die Rede von Präsident Trump nachzulesen.

Gut, dass man nicht angewiesen ist auf die deutsche Shitpaper Presse und seine schwanzlutschenden (1) Journalisten, sondern dass es integre Blogger gibt wie Ann Althouse, Rechtsprofessor an der University of Wisconsin Law School, jetzt emeritierter Professor. Im Blog Post “The 7 most violence-inciting statements in Donald Trump’s speech to the crowd on January 6th.” befasst sie sich mit Trumps Rede. Hier ist ihr Post übersetzt:

Hier ist das Transkript. Ich las die gesamte Rede – die über eine Stunde dauerte – und suchte nach den Sätzen, die am meisten der Interpretation unterliegen, dass er die Menge dazu aufrief, in das Kapitol einzubrechen oder irgendeine Art von Gewalttat zu begehen. Ich mache das, weil mir klar wurde, dass ich keine Zitate von Trump gesehen habe, sondern nur die Behauptung, dass die Rede eine Anstiftung und eine Ursache-Wirkungs-Schlussfolgerung war, die auf der Abfolge der Ereignisse beruhte: Er sprach und dann handelten sie.
Es gibt Stellen, an denen er eindeutig von einem friedlichen Protestmarsch sprach. Er sagt: “Ich weiß, dass alle hier bald zum Kapitol marschieren werden, um friedlich und patriotisch Ihre Stimmen zu Gehör zu bringen.” Und: “Also werden wir die Pennsylvania Avenue entlang gehen … Also gehen wir die Pennsylvania Avenue entlang.”
Aber hier sind die 7 gewalttätigsten Aussagen. Wenn Sie etwas Gewalttätigeres oder mehr im Zusammenhang mit der Idee finden, in das Kapitol einzubrechen und das Verfahren physisch zu stören, lassen Sie es mich wissen und ich werde es der Liste hinzufügen. Folgendes habe ich gefunden und in die Reihenfolge von am wenigsten bis am gewalttätigsten gebracht:

7. Wir gehen zum Kapitol hinunter und werden unsere tapferen Senatoren und Kongressabgeordneten anfeuern. Wir werden einigen von ihnen wahrscheinlich nicht so viel zujubeln, weil Sie unser Land niemals mit Schwäche zurückerobern werden. Man muss Stärke zeigen und man muss stark sein.

6. Um einen Lieblingsbegriff zu verwenden, den Sie alle wirklich erfunden haben, werden wir den Diebstahl stoppen…. Wir werden nicht zulassen, dass sie Ihre Stimmen zum Schweigen bringen.

5. Die Republikaner müssen härter werden. Sie werden keine republikanische Partei haben, wenn Sie nicht härter werden.

4. Wir werden jemanden dort haben, der nicht dort sein sollte, und unser Land wird zerstört, und wir werden nicht dafür eintreten.

3. Wir werden niemals aufgeben. Wir werden niemals zugeben, es passiert nicht. Sie geben nicht zu, wenn es um Diebstahl geht.

2. Wir werden es nicht zulassen. Ich werde es nicht zulassen.

1. Gemeinsam sind wir entschlossen, die Regierung des Volkes, des Volkes und des Volkes zu verteidigen und zu bewahren.” (Ende)

Diese Ministerin unterstellt dem amtierenden Präsidenten – gewählt von 75 Millionen Menschen – des Landes, das Deutschland von den Nazis befreit hat und die mittels Sozialisten an die Macht kamen, Äusserungen, die er belegbar nicht getätigt hat und befürwortet seine Knebelung. Die Aussicht, die sie für Europa macht, lässt nur erschauern. Diese Ministerin sollte ihres Amtes enthoben werden. Doch Eingriff in die freie Meinungsäusserung liegt im DNA dieser Deutschen.

Cadit quaestio

(1) Ich bedauere den Terminus, aber mir fällt bei deutschen Journalisten nichts anderes mehr ein. Einen Günter Gaus gibt es leider nicht mehr.