German Chancellor Merkel made an aggressive speech, saying that the US can no longer be relied upon to maintain the post-World War II order, and the Germany would have to take a more aggressive, “European” role in world affairs to deal with crises, citing especially the “migration crisis”:
Chancellor Angela Merkel made a forceful pitch for Europe to play a more assertive role in global affairs as U.S. President Donald Trump dismantles the post-World War II order, setting the stage for a potential tense standoff at the Group of Seven summit this week.
The German leader again questioned the durability of trans-Atlantic relations by referring to eye-raising comments she made over a year ago in which she said that “the times when we could fully rely on others are to some extent over.” Those words, spoken at a beer-tent election rally, were a reaction to Trump hectoring European leaders for not spending enough on defense at a North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in Brussels. Since then, more fuel has been added to the fire.
“That was my takeaway from the NATO summit, and in the meantime I continue to feel confirmed by my statement,” Merkel said in Munich on Wednesday, this time to a meeting of the European People’s Party, a grouping of center-right parties in the European Parliament.
In addition to the disruptive effects of the rift in NATO and Trump’s exit from the Paris global climate treaty, Merkel pointed to the fresh conflict over trade and the U.S. leader’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear accord last month.
“All of that confirms the assessment that the world is being reorganized,” Merkel told the EPP.
The German chancellor has taken a firmer stance leading up to the two-day G-7 gathering in Canada, which starts Friday. Earlier on Wednesday, Europe’s most experienced government leader vowed to challenge Trump on trade and climate, saying the lack of room for compromise means leaders may fail to agree on a final statement.
Trump’s “America First” doctrine shows that “we have a serious problem with multilateral agreements,” Merkel told German lawmakers, adding that failure to reach common ground could lead to the highly unusual step of host Canada issuing a concluding statement not agreed to by all participants.
U.S. Isolationism
With Trump’s unpredictable leadership and the U.S. turn toward isolationism, Merkel said that the European Union needs to hone its response to a raft of issues in an environment in which global institutions need to be “newly proven.”The 28-member bloc — soon to lose the U.K. after the 2016 referendum to exit the EU — managed to grapple with a financial meltdown and the biggest influx of refugees since World War II only with “great effort,” Merkel said. “But we don’t have a sufficient foundation to confront crises of the future,” she added, underscoring her push for reforms.
To give the region more political heft, she called for joint action on security and migration, saying the bloc should “Europeanize” its presence on the United Nations Security Council. A rotating group of about 10 member states could work with veto-power France and the European Commission in order to “speak with one European voice” on the global stage, the chancellor said.
Migration Tensions
The effort involves resolving tensions over migration. The contentious issue has driven a wedge between states calling for asylum seekers to be distributed within the bloc and those — particularly in central and eastern Europe — insisting migrants must be kept out.“I’ll tell you very openly and deeply seriously, if we don’t manage to form a common response to illegal immigration, then certain foundations of the European Union will be placed in question,” Merkel said, citing freedom of movement across the EU’s borders. (source)
In February 2017, I wrote an article entitled Europe Should Be Happy That Muslims Are Invading Because They Wanted A Muslim Invasion And That Is What They Are Getting, in which I referred to a 2009 presentation by European Commission member from the UK, Bernard Connolly, in which he said that Europe will attempt to instigate a crisis in order to assert itself on a world stage:
This is a very telling statement. As we pointed out here, the European Union wants terrorism. They want disorder. They want the European Union itself to fall apart, and the reason they want this disorder is because from the perspective of power, it is another form of the divide and conquer strategy by creating a rift in society, sowing division, and then stepping in with ‘the answer’ so long as more power is given to them, and one of the answers which we have noted is being presented is National Socialism. (source)
Alberto Alesina, an Italian professor at Harvard who is involved in the Bilderberger Group and has spent his career studying debt, monetary policy, the European political landscape, and “human behavior,” said in his 2006 book The Future of Europe: Reform or Decline that:
Without comprehensive reform, continental Western Europe’s overprotected, overregulated economies will continue to slow―and its political influence will become negligible. This doesn’t mean that Italy, Germany, France, and other now-prosperous countries will become poor; their standard of living will remain comfortable. But they will become largely irrelevant on the world scene. In The Future of Europe, Alesina and Giavazzi (themselves Europeans) outline the steps that Europe must take to prevent its economic and political eclipse.
This is exactly what Connolly was warning about in 2009.
It is also the reason for the creation of the “refugee crisis.”
As we have demonstrated twice (in 2016 and 2018), there is no refugee crisis. The entire event has been manufactured as a project of the governments of Europe and American working with a network of non-profit organizations to traffick people into Europe organized through a series of lucrative contracts and subcontracts.
The majority of the people coming to Europe are not even from actual nations in the Middle East in crisis caused by American policies, such as Syria or Libya. The majority of these people are from sub-Saharan Africa, Afghanistan, and places all around the world. There is no organization to the “immigration” process- people are simply being dumped into the area without any regards to who they are, let alone any potential threat.
This, interestingly, may explain part of the criminal element so prevalent among the refugees. I will explain from an example with personal experience.
I grew up in an area with a heavy concentration of Puerto Rican people. I remember as a child when they arrived, and how while there already had been a substantial migration decades ago, there was another recent migration to my area, which previously had few to no Puerto Ricans. Many people were upset, because it was said that many of the people who had come from “the Island” (as the Puerto Ricans called it) recently were connected to a prison-release program- the Puerto Rican government essentially opened its jails, bought its former convicts a one-way ticket to the USA, and told them not to return.
I have no proof of the accuracy of the above story. However, I remember it being a subject of discussion, and I remember that as more Puerto Ricans arrived so emerged soon after the presence of gangs, drug violence, and other forms of disorder. In one area near where I lived I remember these gangs used to engage in a substantial amount of criminal activity, and I also remember the day the FBI conducted a massive raid on that area and shut down most of the gang activity.
Am I saying that all Puerto Ricans are drug dealers/gang members/social deviants? No.
I’m saying that if it is true that Puerto Rico “cleaned out” its jails and sent them to my area, then it only makes natural sense that where such people went to, they would bring said violence with them. This is not an issue of race, but one of choices that people associate themselves with. It is the same reason why the associations between Australia and criminality, or Americans and the undesirable social underclasses persist, because Australia was an off-shore penal colony and America a dumping ground for the undesirable religious and social groups of the British Empire. It does not mean that all Australians are criminals or all Americans are members of strange and undesirable underclasses. However, both elements still persist to this day in some way because of this history.
I have no proof, and I can only speculate in a similar way about the refugee crisis. However, given that so many people are coming from all around the world with no background information, no means or desire to sort out potential criminals from non-criminals, and given that human behavior remains consistent throughout history, what government would not see this massive “migration” as an opportunity to dispose of its social miscreants and misfits by dumping them into another person’s area?
Why not round up all of the thieves, rapists, murderers, cannibals, robbers, mentally insane, and wretchedly poor people, fill their heads with all types of fantasies about the easy and welfare-driven life that Europeans have, give them a one-way ticket to Europe, and tell them “never return?” In a nation like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Senegal, Nigeria, or Congo, which have many issues to deal with and do not need to deal with more criminality than they already have, and that Europe is taking any and all people from these parts, what a better opportunity could there be for them or any other government to dispose of their “undesirables?”
Given that Germany is using ethnic tensions as a lever to revive nationalism by causing a crisis that will justify a return to militarism, what better opportunity is there not just to use ethnicity, but people of a different ethnicity who are also criminals with an entitlement mindset to rile the anger of the masses? If a group of men who simply do not look “German” or “French” or “British” can cause some social unrest, imagine what hordes of these same men who also are made up of robbers, murderers, and mentally ill people, all with fantasies of an easy life and promised unlimited welfare would do to the average European?
It would trigger massive anger. So much anger that if the people feel that “the government” is not doing enough, they will call for a stronger government who will take a militaristic approach to these people. If they cannot “send them back” or think they can “send them back,” they might just round them up, concentrate them into one area, and dispose of them all at once.
Or perhaps they will establish factories to make them work and be “productive” members of society, and if they show they want to be “productive,” they can earn their freedom, sort of like a work-release program sponsored by the state, where work will make you free.
Sound familiar?
Am I saying all refugees are criminals? Absolutely not. I’m saying that we know about the criminal element among the refugee crisis, and how to those who will already blame the migrants for social ills, it only further adds to their own sense of justification of their beliefs that nationalism and militarism are the answer.
The real losers in all of this are both the refugees as well as the European people who are being manipulated. The European people will find themselves again in a situation similar to the First and Second World Wars, and the refugees, especially the refugees of good will or people who have lived in Europe for several generations but do not look European, may find themselves put to death in the name of nationalism.
This is why the focus of what is happening today is not the issue of Islam first, but of nationalism. Truly, Islam is very important and remains as a existential issue of survival for Europe. However, the rise of Islam cannot be divorced from the decline of the Catholic Faith, and it cannot be ignored that Islam is being allowed to rise in order to, working with ethnic differences, to promote social tension so that the atheistic, darwinian nationalism of Europe that brought the eugenic horrors of the 20th century would be revived again.