Recently, experts and people simply interested in politics increasingly wonder what the objectives are of the leadership of Germany, or rather the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, when they receive crowds of refugees from the Middle East and North Africa. They receive them with open arms, literally quite friendly, spending their own resources on accommodating them. The same Merkel has refused the slightest weakening of the visa regime with Turkey for many years (however, now she is ready to do it for the Syrians), and did not spend a penny to help a Greece in crisis! And the similar assault of generosity has been in action during the ongoing preparations for the general elections in 2017, in which migration will be almost the main issue among the growing conflicts within the ruling coalition and the German leadership. In particular, the leaders of the Bavarian Christian Social Union have traditionally been in alliance with the Christian Democrats of Merkel, but now they openly declare their disagreement with the Chancellor and the stress the need to limit the current flow of people to Germany.
In the international political science community, there are different points of view about the reasons that motivate the head of the German government to open the doors to a number of refugees that are far from German culture and religion, among which there also may be (and certainly are) potential criminals, terrorists, and jihadist recruiters. The most common thesis is that Germany, showing humane treatment towards refugees, is preparing a fertile ground for permanent membership at the UN Security Council. There is another, rather exotic version such as the one expressed by one British publication, that Merkel has bipolar disorder and is incompetent in her actions.
At the same time, few people are asking whether such migration policy is Merkel’s own voluntary choice and to what extent she, as German chancellor, is sovereign in making certain decisions. In fact, in the modern globalized world of American thought “patterns”, few countries can boast independence, but we are talking about Germany, one of the world's largest economies and the leader of the EU. Leaving aside the fact that everyday welfare will never be converted into political power, we can state that Germany is substantially limited in the manifestation of power initiatives. In fact, it remains an occupied territory with an uncertain international status not only de facto, but also de jure.
The author of a new published book named The German Card, the former head of German military counterintelligence Gerd-Helmut Komossa, openly claims the existence of a state secret agreement between Germany and the Allies from May 21st, 1949, which featured fundamental limitations imposed by the victors on the sovereignty of the Federal Republic until 2099, whose existence is hardly to be believed by anyone today. In accordance with the terms of the contract, the allied powers also gained “the right of full control over the German media” until 2099. In addition, the contract states that before coming into office, each Federal Chancellor of Germany must sign the so-called “Chancery act.” In addition, the allies seized the gold reserves of the Federal Republic. It is interesting that Komossa mentioned the presence of such a striking document incidentally when talking about the difficulties of recreating the Bundeswehr after the war, and it wasn’t written about any more. It seems that the discovered secret is just as well known by powers involved as it is terrifying for the uninitiated reader.
We should give a word to the winners. The American political scientists James Goldgeier and the notorious Michael McFaul wrote in their book Power and Purpose that the political and economic transformations that have shaped the face of modern Germany were not its “internal affair,” but part of its inclusion into the Western economic system and security structures. Thus, in their view, Germany is fundamentally different from post-Soviet Russia which, though defeated in the Cold War, was not occupied. Given the lack of occupation, the Russian Federation developed “wrongly”, i.e., not exactly as the US wanted it to.
Of course, critics may reject this evidence as an imagination of a retired mentally ill German fighter or the irresponsible discourse of scholars far from real politics. However, what about the fact that Germany still has no Constitution (Verfassung)? Instead, it has the so-called Basic Law (Grundgesetz), developed and adopted in 1949, specifically created for this purpose by the Parliamentary Council, approved by the United States, France, and Great Britain, and then by the parliaments of Western occupied zones. That this document was temporary adopted before the German reunification solution is the stated reason as to why it was decided to not call it a Constitution. Article 146 of the Basic Law says that it expires on the same day when the Constitution enters into force, which will be approved by the reunited German people. In fact, it turned out that after the unification of Germany, the Basic Law action was automatically extended to the new lands. There was no referendum in 1949 or in 1990, and it is not to be expected in the foreseeable future. According to German “conspiracies”, the fact that there are supporters of a literal reading of Article 146 puts into question the existence of Germany as a state in the international legal sense. In this context, they also pay attention to the reasonably interesting fact that in German documents, the “nationality” column shows not “Bundesrepublik Deutschland” (Federal Republic of Germany), but simply “Deutsch”, i.e. German.
The UN Charter continues to present Germany as an “enemy state”, which in respect to the WW2 victorious countries, as well as regional bodies, concerning the maintenance of international peace and security, can take “enforcement action” without the Security Council’s authorization, including in the event of a “renewal of aggressive policy” (article 53 and 107). In 1994, the UN General Assembly recommended abolishing the phrase “enemy state”, but this was never done. Thus, legally, based on the UN Charter, nothing prevents the US or the UK unilaterally from initiating “enforcement action” against Germany if they comprehend the moves (against the refugees) sufficiently “aggressive.”
In view of this question asked at the beginning of this essay, it is more correct to formulate it as: what considerations guides the international “tutor” of Germany, “making” it carry out such a destructive immigration policy? (Of course, the question of the specific channels and forms of communication to Berlin of these kinds of “wishes” and “recommendations” is no less interesting, but the answer is far beyond the competence of the scientist and political analyst). Probably, the basis of such a strategy is a deep fear of the Anglo-Saxons who threaten the existence of the powers in the European continent powerful enough to challenge their world power and security. In geopolitical terms, we are dealing with the desire of the Sea civilization to “flood” the so-called Rimland (which consists of the whole intermediate territory between Eurasia and the Atlantic, and therefore Germany), to impose a fundamental choice in favor of thalassocracy (Atlanticism and globalism), and thus finally “pull” it away from Land (Eurasia and multipolarity). In turn, they need to deprive Germany – this “great parvenu” – of its hope for revival or strengthening its own continental identity.
The Anglo-Saxons methodically solved this problem by different means and with varying success over a hundred years ago. The founder of Anglo-Saxon geopolitics H. Mackinder, in the early 20th century, wrote about the need to apply a massive preemptive strike on Eurasia. Although he regarded Russia as the main enemy, he recommended the UK to choose the easiest way and the most likely enemy – Germany - as: a) the Reich would presumably be a dynamic driving part of the Russian-German threat, and b) Germany may be fairly easy to surround and block with the help of its neighboring states. (In fact, this plan was realized in action during the First World War).
In 1919, i.e. less than a year after the fatal defeat of the German Empire in World War I, the same Mackinder wrote in his book, Democratic Ideals and Reality: “what will happen to the forces of the Sea, if one day the great continent will politically unite and become the new invincible armada?” It is noteworthy that Mackinder was personally involved in the preparation of the Treaty of Versailles, which was made to consolidate Western Europe as a coastal zone for the Sea forces. At the same time, the creation of limitrophe states was provided, designed to separate the Germans and the Slavs and to prevent the establishment of continental strategic alliance, which was so dangerous for the island nations.
Nevertheless, even though Germany lost the war and its imperial status, it was not occupied. Its territory was not broken down and, therefore, a significant share of political and, above all, spiritual sovereignty remained. The ideological struggle continued, and German thought and spirit rose again, such as the ideological and political movement of the “Conservative Revolution” or the continental geopolitical school of K. Haushofer. Unfortunately, the political practice of Hitler and National Socialism, infected by a racist approach towards history, rejected the “Conservative Revolution’s” values, thinkers, and heroic intuitions, and instead came int o conflict with the struct guidelines of German geopolitics. Hitler’s “Drang nach Osten” violated the “axiom of European politics” of Haushofer (Eurasia is impossible to destroy insofar as the two largest nations – Germans and Russians – strive to avoid conflict) and quite naturally turned out to be responsible for the death of Germany, the triumph of the Sea civilization and ultimately, fatally weakened the Land civilization’s position.
It is significant that at the end of the Second World War, the division of Germany took place on the Berlin meridian, which in the analysis of Mackinder is what divides Europe into East and West. Only Eastern Europe is the critical element, and adjoining it, one of the potential “founder” of the continent – Germany or Russia – takes the character of the geopolitical value of this parameter, thus the rivals have no more control over Eurasia. Since at the time the Anglo-Saxons could not do anything about such given the Soviet Union (Russia), they tried to eliminate the historical roots of Germany's potential ability to transform the geographical region of Central Europe into a geopolitical force (Mitteleuropa). What happened at the meetings of the various allied occupation structures is convincing evidence that the United Kingdom sought to proclaim the abolition of not only Hitler, but historical Germany, taking advantage of the pretext that the “sin” of Nazism and World War (formally) started by Hitler offered. Thus, the British delegation, with maniacal persistence, put on the agenda of the meetings the issue of “abolition”, the “destruction” of the Prussian state (the agenda of Foreign Ministers Council session was consistent at the top and could not contain such issues, as such decisions were not taken in Yalta or in Potsdam).
The word Prussian has a common meaning in the world, and it would be a significant contribution to specify in a statement the destruction of the Prussian state, the British delegation insisted at the Civil Administration Committee, presenting its memorandum. For two hundred years, Prussia was a threat to the security of Europe. The existence of the Prussian state, at least in name only, could give rise to irredentist claims, which the German people could further advance, could strengthen German militaristic tendencies, and could also contribute to the revival of authoritarianism, centralized in Germany, that must be prevented.”
Komossa writes that in the process of the development of the Armed Forces of the “newest” Germany, the Western allies focused on the expulsion of the military spirit from the memory of Prussians. There was an order to eliminate excessive Prussian identity. Even the hobnailed boots with short tops were discarded. Bundeswehr soldiers walked on soft rubber soles. ... Everything had to look as “civil” as possible. While the soldiers of the GDR National People's Army wore the modified gray uniform of the former German Wehrmacht soldiers, the Bundeswehr solder was wearing a uniform mixed with American style elements that seemed more like the porter's uniform of Hamburg St. Pauli. One of the prominent members of the Conservative Revolution, Ernst Jünger, noted much earlier that the burgher clothes make the German figure particularly ridiculous.
The current Germans, with their most powerful economy and spineless cultural and foreign policy, excessive “tolerance” towards refugees, and intolerance toward those who dare to question the justification of “multiculturalism”, look just as truly ridiculous. Looking at the way Merkel satisfies the Turks, dutifully turning a blind eye to the Americans wiretaps of German politicians and allowing them to apply pressure at the transatlantic partnership negotiations, sometimes it seems that the Anglo-Saxons have almost reached their goal to finish Great Germany.
And yet the soul of the people is with God. Thus, it is indestructible. And modern Germany – scraped, abused, flooded with migrants and sodomites, corrupt politicians, constantly repentant of Nazi crimes, and humbly looking at all these outrages of law-abiding burghers - still has forces which breathe life into the great continental spirit, the spirit of the Holy Roman Empire, the Prussian Order, the “iron Chancellor” and the warrior-poets of the Conservative revolution of 1920’s-1930’s.
Here, for example, are extracts from the program provisions of the National Democratic Party of Germany (NDP): “Dignity and human rights are defined by its belonging to a particular nation, which is placed in the center of the sphere of politics. It is the nation, not the individual person, which the government should be responsible for. A woman should be first a wife and mother; “housewife” is a profession, and like other ones, a law must insert it. The land and the soil belong to the German people. In addition, the NDP was in favor of the withdrawal of US troops from the territory of Germany, insisted on the withdrawal of Germany from the European Union and NATO, the abolishment of the right of asylum for migrants, and calls to restore important attributes of sovereignty, like the death penalty, at least for repeated serious offenders, in particular pedophilia, drug trafficking, rape, murder etc.”
The Pro Germany Citizens' Movement (Bürgerbewegung pro Deutschland) and the Republicans (Der Republikaner) want to see Germany as a state where “law and order” reign and the Prussian heritage is respected. The core of the education of the younger generation has been drawn from traditional German values: discipline, diligence, order, decency, and honor. The teaching of the German language should be given special importance; while the reform of 1996 greatly simplified the spelling rules, it must be abolished. The Republicans are in favor of strengthening the role of “direct” democracy institutions in politics (especially on the matter of the adoption of its own Constitution, instead of the German Basic Law) and considers that it is necessary to abolish the phrase “enemy state” towards Germany in the UN Charter.
We should say that the aforementioned parties in modern Germany are strongly demonized by the authorities, are always under the special supervision of Federal Office for the Protection of the (as it turns out non-existent) Constitution, and are periodically forced to defend their right to participate in the political process in court. Moreover, they are marginalized as “right-wing extremists”, and we cannot exclude that Anglo-Saxon employees are among their members, as well as Israeli agents, who seek to control and possibly direct trends and processes threatening their domination over Germany in the right way. It is likely that due to their tacit participation, the program of the extreme right has really erroneous and malicious slogans like Hitler's racist concepts: for example, the definition of the nation as a mono-ethnic community and putting forward the requirements to send all migrants away from the Federal Republic of Germany. Thus, the true bearers of the Prussian spirit are in the same line with the mentally ill German racists and revanchists - what a notorious milieu! Nevertheless, the mere existence of such organizations, as well as the intelligence agencies interested in them, indicates that the Germans, despite “education”, saved nostalgia and an inescapable yearning for themselves.
However, on the German political horizon, it seems there is now a force that is able to satisfy, at least partially, this yearning. We are talking about Alternative for Germany (AfD), which has recently significantly strengthened their position and strictly want to make its deputies take part in further elections to the Bundestag. It does not accept the racist and narrow ethnocentric recipes in the fellow right-wing camp, and carefully distances itself from hooligans and provocateurs in order to avoid falling under the blows of the national and international establishment. AfD is focused on a friendly eastern policy, especially with regards to Russia, and at the same time skeptical about Germany's membership in the EU and NATO. Not long ago, the party was able to get rid of a number of Atlanticist agents in their ranks, and the subsequent attacks on it thus became even more predictable. However, its popularity among communities has increased.
The future will show how this alternative will be effective and real. The alternative is very necessary not only for Germans, but also for Europe, which, with a lack of a strong, united Germany joining around the Old World, is doomed to remain disparate and at different stages of desovereigntization - a sort of rich ethnographic museum hosting US and UK watchdogs. In contrast, only a Germany returning to itself can currently make Europe a truly independent center of power.
We can ask: does Russia need such a Germany and Europe, and will this threaten the revival of a new monstrous war in Eurasia? Well, there is the risk that the Sea forces will try once again to strengthen its global supremacy by mixing identities and stirring up the two continental powers against each other. But, in recent years, the power of the Atlantic civilization has reached such a high level that it cannot be beaten alone by anyone. Therefore, the greater number of independent centers of true sovereignty there are, the more the multipolar world becomes close to reality, and thus the greater the chances of success in the confrontation with the Leviathan and the New World Order. All the great German geopoliticians regarded Germany as a Land Empire and were in support of an alliance with Russia. We have the power to make sure that their covenant becomes real, and that the fears of the Anglo-Saxons materialize. They have cherished for too long at our own geopolitical expense.
Thus, if the storm will come we will cope with it!
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
L’arrivée éventuelle au pouvoir suprême en Autriche, on le saura dans moins d’un mois, dans un pays aussi proche et de la même langue maternelle que l’Allemagne, de Monsieur Norbert Hofer, a de quoi alarmer Madame Merkel. Si l’hypothèse devient réalité, l’Autriche va être, de quelque côté que l’on se place, celui de l’ingérence, ou celui de la solidarité, le test grandeur nature par excellence. Berlin fera tout pour isoler l’Autriche, et pour faire tomber son nouveau président au plus vite, si possible avant qu’il ne puisse se faire seconder par un exécutif de la même majorité que lui, à la suite de nouvelles élections législatives.
Soit, au lieu de cela, au lieu de se barricader, l’Autriche s’apprête à jouer le rôle du « Piémont de l’Europe », de l’Europe retrouvée. Elle choisit alors de sonner l’heure de la résistance européenne et du rassemblement. Elle pourrait le faire en menant de front deux initiatives. D’une part, en constituant un noyau dur au cœur de l’Europe en se rapprochant de la Hongrie (ce qui semble naturel et ce qui serait un beau pied de nez de la défunte Double monarchie à l’histoire) et d’autres États plus ou moins sur sa ligne. D’autre part, en soutenant à travers tout le continent tous ceux qui, pour poursuivre l’analogie historique avec l’unification italienne, sont prêts à tenir le rôle des « garibaldiens » de la cause européenne.
On peut bien sûr me rétorquer : « Attention ! Les gens ne se laisseront pas faire ! ». Mais que feront-ils ? On peut imaginer qu’ils émigreront sous d’autres cieux. Cependant, il faut savoir que l’émigrant est un type particulier d’humain, comme l’étaient par exemple mes parents, personnes de nature aventureuse. Or la plupart des Allemands contemporains ne sont pas des types d’aventuriers. Ils veulent faire tranquillement leur boulot, élever leurs enfants et partir en vacances.
La liste comprend, en plus des Fondations Open Society de Soros, la Stiftung Mercator, une organisation liée aussi à Soros et l’organisation Robert Bosch Stiftung. La Commission européenne est aussi un des bailleurs de fonds de I’ISE. Puis, assez curieusement, la liste des bailleurs de fonds pour le plan Merkel comprend également une organisation au nom orwellien, l’Institut de la paix des États-Unis.
