There’s a very simple solution to this: don’t use Reddit.

In Germany, this is indeed still (ostensibly) justified by citing the historical responsibility Germany bears toward the victims of the Holocaust. However, this line of reasoning is obviously completely nonsensical, since Germany’s responsibility naturally does not pertain to the State of Israel, but rather to doing everything in its power to prevent genocide—a goal that is, unfortunately, being thwarted by our politicians.

The fact that the political establishment and the powerful elites continue to support Israel despite its undeniable crimes and inhuman atrocities can, in my view, only be explained by corruption and skillful intelligence work on the part of the Mossad. I can no longer think of any other explanation.

In my opinion, the Epstein documents provide a fairly clear picture of how this works.

As a German, I can say that, unfortunately, nearly every major political party in Germany defends Israel and thereby actively supports its genocide. In my view, this is completely at odds with the general will of the people, as the majority of citizens firmly and decisively reject this criminal policy. They want Israel to finally be held accountable for its crimes, but this is being prevented by the political establishment.

Therefore, in my view, it would only be right to boycott German products as well, so that the pressure on our wretched politicians increases.

I do the same, and as a European, I also boycott all U.S. products, because this country not only participates in Israel’s atrocities but even makes them possible in the first place.

Well, people presumably don’t want to be arbitrarily arrested and dragged off to a concentration camp … or they just can’t stand fascists. Both are good reasons to boycott this criminal state. It’s about time, anyway, since FIFA is a plague too.

Thanks, I was too lazy to look up this example, especially since there are so many of them.

What are you getting at? This country was designed to be an oligarchy, and it still is one. That’s hardly surprising.

You do realize that the U.S. Constitution was written for a country where slavery was constitutionally permissible, right? And you’re also aware that the U.S. Constitution is the hardest of all democratic constitutions to amend, aren’t you? Likewise, that it has in fact been amended only very marginally, which makes this Constitution the only one that appoints constitutional judges for life and does not take into account to any significant degree that some states have far fewer residents than others, right?

In short: You are already aware that it is the U.S. Constitution itself that made today’s conditions—which no longer have the slightest connection to a democratic constitutional state—possible in the first place?

Edit: If not, I would strongly encourage everyone to fact-check this comment, because this is an issue that affects every U.S. citizen.

Yes, unfortunately that’s absolutely true. What really bothers me is that centralization is inherent to the nature of the internet, which isn’t a bad thing in and of itself. Unfortunately, however, billionaires have recognized this and have now created yet another advancement in the form of LLMs, which allows them to tighten their stranglehold even further.

I am convinced that the global resurgence of fascism is a direct consequence of this.

But yes, that’s unfortunately how it is: The internet has turned from a hopeful utopia into a dystopia that now makes even the bleak visions of the future by Orwell, Huxley, and others seem almost harmless by comparison.

The saddest part of it all is that it didn’t have to be this way if people were just a little less self-centered. After all, no one is forcing anyone to shop on Amazon or use Twitter, but millions upon millions of people do it anyway, thereby enabling what one might almost call a new—this time, however, global—monarchy of the absurdly rich; even nations are not able to defend its citizens against this centralized power.

But of course you’re absolutely right: we should probably just make the most of the freedoms we still have and use them while they still exist.

Apparently, the world’s billionaires now see themselves as a kind of global monarchy. Well, unfortunately, this is where unbridled hyper-capitalism has led us.

Yes, and the reason for that is lobbying, aka corruption.

This clearly illustrates the extent to which our politicians are selling out the interests of citizens for their own gain. Right now would be the ideal time to finally promote digital sovereignty, especially since products that don’t come from China or the U.S. could use that trust as a selling point. Unfortunately, however, everything remains the same because our politicians allow themselves to be bribed by criminals in the U.S.

It isn’t just big, it’s magnificent…

Yes, that is highly likely. That’s why I’m always surprised that it’s almost exclusively Chinese products that come under suspicion in public debate. Not that we shouldn’t have safety concerns here as well, but it’s exactly as you say: With U.S. products, it’s at least just as appropriate to fundamentally distrust the manufacturers, especially since the country is obviously ruled by a criminal regime that has absolutely no scruples and blackmails other countries with everything at its disposal.

Shouldn’t we ask the same question about products from the U.S.?

What else is there to say? This statement is correct: religion has always been misused for political purposes - that’s what the sentence says, not that religion itself is always misused; that’s your interpretation.

Besides, if you’d read a little further, you probably would have figured out what I’m trying to say.

You’re reading into my statement that it somehow implies I’m making some kind of fundamental claim about religion here. I’m sorry, but it’s simply a fact that religion is being misused for political purposes. I can’t help it if you’re turning that into a fundamental claim that isn’t there at all.

What makes you think I’m not fully aware of that?

I’m talking about the dangers of exploiting religion, which remains one of humanity’s most serious problems, as is currently and undeniably illustrated by the monstrous regimes in the U.S. and Israel, for example.

I never said that religion should be rejected outright or that it cannot also do good.

I don’t understand how you came to that conclusion.

Religion certainly plays a regulatory role within society - historically, for a very, very long time. It also promotes values such as charity, empathy, and humility as virtues. The problem, unfortunately, is that this system of order is frequently abused in practice - just like the legal system, whose guidelines are often derived from religious values. So it is not religion itself that is the problem, but the way it is abused.

A good example of this is the ultra-conservative Christians in the U.S.: Since this ideology is being exploited politically to promote a ruthless form of hyper-capitalism that serves only a tiny elite, there is no room for values such as humanity and empathy, which the Bible clearly prescribes as positive values. Thus, inhuman policies are legitimized in the name of God and Jesus, though only those aspects of religion that enable the propagation of “in-groups” and “out-groups” are utilized. On the one hand, this serves to convey a sense of community, and on the other, to deny all rights -including the right to exist - to anyone who does not belong. Of course, this could no longer be reconciled with Christian ethics, but since this is not about ethics but about power, these schizophrenic movements are nevertheless very successful.

This logic is present in nearly all forms of religious extremism - from ultra-Christians to fanatical Muslims and Jews to Hindus and so on. These fundamentalist movements always have one thing in common: they are not interested in good, peaceful coexistence, but solely in the dominance of one group over another, which is because they are political movements whose leaders use religion merely as a means of power to legitimize their inhumane ideology.

But please don’t misunderstand what I’m saying here: It is not religion itself that is the problem, but the way it is abused to pit people against one another and distract them from who actually benefits from the corresponding policies.

This effect is by no means limited to religion: the same can be achieved, for example, by emphasizing nationality - in this case, concepts such as “foreign infiltration” serve as a backdrop of fear, so that the corresponding out-group can be denied basic rights, even their humanity.

This doesn’t baffle anyone at all. On the contrary. It was entirely to be expected, given all the AIPAC money Israel uses to bribe politicians.

Religion is, and always has been, a tool used by those in power to legitimize the status quo.

Its primary purpose is to shift responsibility for actions onto fate and thus divert attention from the fact that it is people who are responsible for these actions. In this way, even the most unfair and exploitative conditions can still be portrayed as just: the king by the grace of God, the kingdom of heaven that awaits the patient after death, hell that punishes the greedy, making it unnecessary to hold them accountable in this life, and so on.

This also works in reverse to strip people of the self-confidence that they can achieve things through their own efforts: Thank God for the food he has put on the table, for your success, and for everything else, because he has given it to you in his infinite generosity - don’t even think of making demands.

In this sense, religion provides a justification for hierarchies in society. It cements the status quo in the interests of the powerful.

Hence: People who do not question this narrative - which serves their own exploitation - but have made it the purpose of their lives are quite strange, because they are thereby harming themselves.