Recently published book claims that in autumn 2015 Angela Merkel wanted to close borders also from refugees.
The Welt magazine reporter Robin Alexander writes in his book “Die Getriebenen – Merkels Flüchtlingspolitik: Report aus dem Inneren der Macht“ that deals with Angela Merkels immigration policy, that on 12. September 2015 the top political administration of Germany had a phone meeting, in which it was decided to initiate border control. Immigrants without proper travelling documents were supposed to be denied entry to the country, also in case they wanted to seek asylum.
However, the decision fizzled as the practical enforcement raised up legal questions. The German minister of interior Thomas de Maiziére requested additional instructions from chancellor Merkel, but she did not want to take responsibility for execution of closing borders and told that it was a responsibility of judicature to investigate the legality of the decision.
Merkel was also worried about that the use of police and military to secure borders might create images that could be hard to justify.
Robin Alexander thinks that restraining uncontrolled immigration was not due to lack of political will, as people have thought. The decision had already been made, but on crucial moment there was no politician, who wanted to take responsibility for its implementation.
Lack of Political Will
It is amusing to read feedback on Robin Alexander’s brain fart on discussion forums. People guide political leadership to recognize the fact that political will requires taking responsibility of decisions that have been made. Someone rejoices: “News became newsworthy! Merkel almost started to do something.” Other sees the ‘disclosure’ of Robin Alexander as a sign of approaching elections, and how stupid the political administration sees the voting cattle. As elections approach many stories pop up to whitewash own failures.
It seems to me that Angela Merkel has defended passionately her open border policy and Islamization. According to my observations, it is far fetched to speak about closing borders. At most it tells how divided the political administration of Germany is about immigration policies.
The book of Robin Alexander tries to paint a picture that Angela Merkel wanted to avoid arbitrary actions, when she asked courts to investigate, if it was legal to close borders. But the worry about legality of the decision was erased on the 3rd of November 2015, when the Ministries of Interior and Justice gave an account that there is no legal hindrance to close the border. Despite of this Angela Merkel continued her open doors policy and tried to persuade people on her side by presenting it as an only option and moral obligation of people. Loyal to her own agenda she, like her followers, labelled all opposition as racists, fascists and yokels, who are afraid of difference.
Maybe Angela Merkel wanted to avoid arbitrary acts, but the fact is that she acted in an autocratic, dictatorial manner when she decided to leave the borders wide open. In this respect she had no worry about the legality of her actions, even though she violated all basic rules of organized society.
Angela Merkel is worried about possible unfavourable images, if she shut the borders. This kind of footage we have from eastern Europe, but on me and many other people it has only a positive effect. We in the “progressive” West try to digest footage in which Islamists proudly present their beheaded enemies, the so called infidels. Or pictures of urban warfare and destruction, or utilization of lorries to subdue western influence, or grumble of our fleeing honorary citizens about crappy food, bad apartments and slow internet connection. We should not forget footage of raped women, boys, girls and elderly people or slaughtered gullible fools, who think that those, whom they have given their wholehearted assistance would thank them with fruits of the spirit. All as incomprehensible as ‘honour killings’ or female genital mutilation, which are designed to shore up the imaginary status of their practitioners, but which, when perceived objectively, nullify the remnants of honour that they think they have.
The clearer the harmfulness of decisions made by political leaders become to citizens, the more vigorously they oppose them. But this does not cause decision makers to change their political guidelines. In their opinion the greatest threat today is the rise of right-wing populism, the criticism of their own policies. Politicians and officials, who label themselves ‘responsible’ people, condemn protests of native population as hate speech and the bluster and destructive rage of immigrants against western people and society is considered as normal freedom of speech. Web police closes popular political blogs on the pretext of ‘hate speech’ and at the same time Islamists’ websites citing Quran, preaching destruction and desolation of Western society, are allowed to continue their incitement to hatred in the name of ‘human rights’.
Politically correct ‘good people’, who seem to be completely adrift, probably do not even understand how harmful this spineless shilly-shallying is for the society. In case of crisis requiring good judgement, it is very bad that a government is incapable of action. The more incapable a government, the more probable is the rise of right-wing populism, which in my opinion is a good thing. I do not mean that right-wing populism that has been coloured by politicians and media to present themselves in a positive way. I mean populism in its original meaning.
Populism in all its simplicity is power of people. It is direct democracy, which is meant to stand for the needs and wishes of ordinary citizens. So, every politician, who claims to represent ordinary citizens should react positively to populism. However, populism is denounced to be contest of popularity in emotional and simplifying manner with symbols that people easily buy. Their aim is to find simple solutions to complex problems, which in opinion of our representatives are too difficult for common citizens to understand.
But many catastrophes have shown that even political leadership do not understand things that they are making decisions of. If they would understand, they would stand behind their decisions. They would at least aim to secure the pre-conditions and form of a working, organized society. Yet the situation in many Western democracies resembles anarchy.
Populism and Fascism
The concept of fascism has been coloured in the course of time as fervently as the concepts of right-wing populism and radical right. Radical right and right-wing populism is connected to fascism, but people have very vague understanding what is behind these words. Many probably wonder, what kind of fascism is involved with power of the people or with strong nation states.
Fascism has been connected to attributes like anticommunism, anti liberalism, anti conservatism and anti democracy. It emphasizes strong leadership, power of the party and totalitarianism. The concept of fascism is still strongly connected to impressions and concepts originating from the Second World War. World has changed essentially since then and I think that also our concepts and notions need to be updated as well.
The Origins of Fascism
Wikipedia says that the word fascism comes from ancient Rome: the bodyguards (lictors) of consuls or magistrates carried with them bundle of rods (Latin fasces), with axe in the middle. In the late 1800s Italian socialists set up action groups (fasci), which were named to symbolize the strong unity, support and organization of working people. Benito Mussolini, who was activist in that movement, took the term with him when setting up his own party and ideology during the First World War.
Wikipedia continues that the fascists sought totalitarian, state-controlled and party led state. Only Hitler succeeded in this endeavour. However, it should be noted that all populist movements, also fascism rise to solve certain social problems. It is absurd to define words solely on meaning they have gained in different situations and contexts without perceiving the cause and effect relationships of things and word use, and motives of different actors. Hitler writes in his book “Mein Kampf” that “to study history means to search for and discover the forces that are the causes of those results which appear before our eyes as historical events.”
Linguists are well aware of the fact that words are weapons, in particular in political use. They are often just as effective as guns, which people use to kill each other. While honest businessmen focus on their strengths, a prerequisite for the success of a politician is invention of slogans and explanations to harm their adversary and to strengthen own power. In this sense, all politicians are fascists, because their ultimate goal is leadership, party power and planting their own ideology to whole nations (cf.. totalitarianism) regardless of state borders.
Nation States of “fascist” Hitler
Hitler’s National Socialist Party rose to power in Germany after the First World War, to raise the country from the degradation it fell due to the unfavourable Versailles Peace Treaty and decisions of inoperable government. Hitler’s countless speeches and interviews suggest that his driving force was the interest of German people. The fact that he did not believe in democracy in the society of that time, does not make him a fascist. Rather, it makes one think that he saw himself as a representative of the people.
In his book “Mein Kampf” he describes that after the death of his parents, he was forced to leave his bourgeois home at the age of 15. Since then he had to earn his living in Vienna, which was during that time the sixth-biggest city in the world with a population of two million people. For this reason the desperate situation of the lower social classes became familiar to him as he was very young. He saw his hardships as a School of Life, and thanked Providence that he learned everything the hard way and that he saw things from bottom to top, unlike most of the decision makers, who looked at things from above downwards without practical understanding of the issues.
Hitler could not say, what it was that appalled him most: the economic misery of his companions, their crude customs and morals, or the low level of their intellectual culture. In any case, his struggle for existence convinced him very early, that the social work should focus to eliminate fundamental deficiencies in economic and cultural life, which very likely bring about the degradation of individuals.”
According to his conviction there was two ways to improve conditions in a society: On the one hand it required profound feeling of social responsibility to create better fundamental conditions for social development, and on the other hand determination to remove practices that cause degeneration of society.
Principally he opposed social democracy and trade union, because they led to constant class struggle between labour force and employers. Although their aim was the improvement of working conditions of manual labour force, they agitated workers against employers. Hitler thought that they were all on the same side and their common goal was economic growth. The interest of an employer are workers, who are motivated and in full physical and mental capacities. Worker’s interest are motivating, innovative and encouraging employer and working environment, which offers best resources for project accomplishment.
The ideal of National Socialism are unified, stable nation communities, where everyone is collaborating to reach common goals. The task of a government is to create such national infrastructure and services, which make the kind of co-operation possible that benefits all. So that people can talk about common good at all.
Disease Identification: Prerequisite for Betterment
When I read Hitler’s book “Mein Kampf” it feels, as if he would speak about current day. After the First World War, the social situation in Austria and Germany has been very similar to that of today, if we do not take into account today’s technological developments. Germany’s social disaster after the World War I was a huge tragedy, but Hitler did not consider it as a result of the lost war. In chapter 10 “Why the Second Reich Collapsed” in his book he talks about this.
It is easy to think that the problems were caused by the loss of the war and the economic collapse, because everyone was somehow afflicted by the misfortune in their everyday life. However, in Hitler’s view these were consequences of a long term decadence in German society.
He thought that one of the worst signs of decay in pre-war Germany was the ever increasing habit of doing things by halves, which was caused by people’s uncertainty and timidity. Education was simply and exclusively limited to the production of pure knowledge and paid little attention to the development of practical ability. Still less attention was given to the development of individual character or the development of a sense of responsibility, to strengthening the will and the powers of decision. As a result of this kind of education is not strong men, but rather easily manipulated, pliable and spineless know-it-all men, who are watering down their own decisions and are willing to sell their own country, when they e.g. do not know the legal grounds for their decisions. Because they are not able to see the entirety of things, they leave things half-done and do not follow common sense.
Hitler did not mince his words in describing the decay that had spread among the people, which many people could not or did not even want to see. In his opinion however, the moral decadence of people, was the result of the fact that money was given such a great value in the society that it had hijacked the life of the whole nation under its control and scrutiny. People seriously believed that money made the world go round, and that nations and states should thank economy for keeping them working and not the eternal spiritual values that form our intellectual backbone.
However, Hitler felt it was good that the crash came so suddenly and unexpectedly, as it shook everyone awake. People had to see their own situation and social decadence, before healing could begin. Hitler had a clear vision of how he gets the nation to a new splendour and was also successful in winning people by his side and to work for common goals.
Strength in Weakness
You probably wonder that I have only written about weaknesses of the European Union, although this article was meant to present its strengths. That is the core of the issue: Where man is weak, God is strong. The more we weaken the influence of our Lucifer-driven ego, the stronger God can work through us.
We should have the courage to question everything that we think we know. When we believe something that is not true, it is simply a delusion that leads us astray. When Finland fought against Russia it was like a duel of David and Goliath. Small nation against a superpower.
In that war all means were used. One tactic of Finnish soldiers was to fell trees, tie them together to make a chain and raise them into the air. In that way they created an illusion of a forest, which confused the adversary. The adversary wasted its munition to the illusory forest, which they thought was hiding enemy lying in ambush, ready to attack.
In one battle the superpower lost 7000-9000 men, while own forces suffered losses of 600 men. And 1200 were injured. It could have been much worse, but fortunately everything is not what it looks like.
Video:Beyond Science: Mysterious Giant Swastika Crop Circle Appears in British Countryside Lauren Southern: Why We’ll Forget About London
Pat Condell: Hello Angry Losers