Meh, it’s happened before. In the 1930’s there was much Progressive admiration for what Mussolini and Hitler were doing; all those highways, trains running on time, economic growth and rapidly falling unemployment. But before that there was the Weimar Republic and the common wisdom is that its fecklessness allowed the Nazi rise to power. Before watching the other videos in this post, watch this one first and then marvel at the stupidity of modern German elites and their counterparts in the American MSM:
Following close on the heels of a CBS anchor, Margaret Brennan, making a fucking fool of herself with Secretary of State Marco Rubio (The Nazis Arose Because of Free Speech), last Sunday morning (US time), the same channel decided to screen a “60 Minutes” special just hours later on the Sunday night that took a look at what the Germans are doing about free speech:
Oh, you thought they might be encouraging free speech? No, no, no – at least not the dangerous kind, the kind not approved of by the authorities. A racist cartoon! He should have just been shot on the spot.
The extra crispy taste here is provided by the fact that CBS’s earlier Brennan spot had bemoaned how Hitler’s Germany was all about the sort of free speech like this. Racist cartoons one day, burning Muslims the next, just like the 1930’s but with a different invading ethnicity.
Normally at this point I’d make cheap, nasty jokes about the Germans and policing, but of course Britain and other Euro countries are doing the same things with only slight variations – although they at least have enough common sense (I can’t say shame) not to invite a fucking American TV crew along with them to gleefully record actual German fascists doing genuinely fascist stuff.
Oh bugger it, I can’t resist: In German, “state police” is Gestadt Polizei. It sounds familiar to me but needs to be shortened to something with more punch.
The reason that CBS joined in the fun of that raid is that they fully approve of this, as they showed in this other segment of the show:
Here’s the real kicker in that interview with three of Germany’s finest when CBS pushed back a little:
You’re doing all this work, you’re doing investigations, finding people, sometimes putting them in jail. Does it make a difference if it’s a World Wide Web and there’s a lot of hate out there?
Wait! What?
So CBS’s only criticism is that …. the Germans perhaps aren’t making enough of a difference? The criticism is “can you ever really prosecute enough free speech?
This, from a fucking American MSM source, is the real question as they follow a band of German cops making armed raids on people’s houses taking phones and computers for insulting people online. Observe also that these literal German speech police laugh it up when the reporter asks them “how do people react when you take their phones?”, and then levy stiff fines on them for speech. The reporter smiles, too.
More from the Germans interviewed:
HateAiD? Could they really have not come up with a better name? Actually I’m glad they didn’t; it works. Perhaps it was Freudian. Germany’s Plan to “Fight Fascism” Is 100% Fascism, but the whole thing is a target-rich environment.
BALLON: Free speech needs boundaries, and in the case of Germany, these boundaries are part of our constitution. Without boundaries, a very small group of people can rely on endless freedom to say anything that they want, while everyone else is scared and intimidated.
INTERVIEWER: And your fear is that if people are freely attacked online that they’ll withdraw from the discussion.
BALLON: This is not only a fear, it is already taking place. Already half of zee Internet users in Chermany are afraid to express zeir political opinion und rarely participate in debates online anymore.
Okay, I cheated a little on the quote by trying to add in the German accent and make it more authentic. I reckon guessing the reason is a fifty:fifty shot so here’s my alternative: maybe half of German internet users are afraid to express their political opinions because they know that SS-Obergruppenführer Ballon and friends are watching and waiting for the chance to throw them in the clink.
More from this American show as they broadcast the following without comment:
Vance himself struck back on this bullshit.
I liked it when the Voice Over intoned that, “prosecutors argue they’re protecting democracy & discourse by introducing a touch of German order to the unruly World Wide Web”.
I’m not sure whether it’s a good thing or bad thing that my Dad is not around to see and hear this. On the one hand I think he’d laugh his ass off at these absurdities. On the other hand he might take seriously the possibility that a good part of the Western world approves of a “touch of German order”, given that he fought against that concept.
Lastly, a laugh, because after the above, we need it.
No Minister 
To obscure?
Her name was Sophie Scholl and she distributed pamphlets at Munich University the authorities didn’t like.
True story.
Sophie is mentioned by Traudl Junge, at the end of the movie ‘Downfall’. The movie itself is an autobiography of Traudl’s time as Hitlers secretary.
Sophie is not forgotten.
Her brother Hans Scholl and their friend Christoph Probst were also executed by guillotine.
There was so much free speech in wartime Germany that you had to get a Government permit to buy a duplicating machine (probably a Gestetner or similar).
‘a “touch of German order”…’
I have two grandparents who participated in an entire world war to stop German ordnung. Nobody liked it the first time, and it sure ain’t a good thing now.
“OFFENCE” is something that occurs in the mind of the person that “feels offended” because someone else disagrees with them.
An OFFENCE is a physical act that causes material harm to other people or their property.
Intentional efforts to provoke people to harm other people or their personal property are also undesirable but expressing one’s opinion is not a criminal OFFENCE.
It is well proven that the people who can control the public narrative have the power to also control the majority of the people (especially if they also control the nation’s money).
Politicians and bureaucrats are by they basic nature people who think they are entitled to authority and power over others. They may say (and even believe) that they use this authority “for the common good” but that is a delusion and a popular myth.
Individuals that disagree with the “official narrative” are tolerated as long as this is not perceived as a threat to the authority of the political elites.
The unofficial (false) narratives are becoming accepted by larger groups of citizens. the people promoting this “heresy” have to be silenced.
Controlling the narrative has become more difficult in the information and internet age because more people can access the facts that contradict the official narrative and communicate with more other people online.
A physical gathering of people saying “the wrong things” can be dealt with much more easily than virtual communication between very large numbers of “disobedient troublemakers”.
The solution has been the creation of an undefined and unjustified crime called “hate speech” and the appointment of government employees called “fact checkers” to prevent the communication between people that dare to disagree with and challenge the official narrative.
As our lovely Jacinda said about hate speech, she could not define it but would definitely “know it if I see it” because it is whatever she does not want people to say.
The intention is to limit communication that could unite people and form groups of “dissenters” that might challenge the authority and power of the social, economic and political elites (aka the establishment or deep state).
Hate is not behaviour that causes material harm to a person or their property. It is just a common and normal human emotion or feeling like the others that the “offense” that people feel when others challenge their opinions and beliefs.
Hate is to love as dislike is to like and these basic “feelings” often get confused but
Feelings, emotions and words do not cause any real harm unless they are ACTED UPON and the ACTIONS result in actual material harm that is classified as a CRIME.
Therefore and QED the idea that speech can be a crime is A DELUSION that all rational people must reject.