Angela Merkel - Nations Must Give Up Sovereignty To New World Order

"Dumbfounded" doesn't even begin to describe how I feel reading Americans' posts on this thread. Not because most willingly believe the OP, which is completely false, but because you* ignore your own past, present, and choices of lifestyle.

Isn't the US of A a union of states that willingly give up part of their sovereignty for the benefit of all? Wasn't it formed by integration and assimilation of very different people from very different countries, mostly countries from the same Europe you now claim stands no chance to form a new system, even though they managed exactly that in your country? Can you imagine how would your great country have looked if each state was independent and unwilling to cede part of its sovereignty to the federation? Didn't you go to war to prevent that? If it worked for you, it might just work for others.

* "you" Americans, not you Fred

 

So this is excuse for lying and manipulating with people? I know 3 languages and i undersund difference between tranlation and interpratation.

Real jornalist do not manipulate with people, do not move into their minds the consporation teories aboit new world order. This article is brutal manipulation with naive people. So called "jornalist" tooked some words from speach, tranlate it incorrectly, added there Adolf Hitler and his own bullshit.

 

So what if the birthrates are fallen? We live in a overpopulated planet anyway. It's not Germans and Japanese that need to have more babies, it's the rest of the world needs to have less. If we don't want to be exterminated en mass by Mother Nature, that is.
But wait, I know what you think. You think like the political scum of the so called "elite". You worry there will not be enough people to pay taxes, so that you can give welfare and pensions. You don't care about the fabric of society. You don't care that savages look at Germans and other western people like a pray for the taking, a sitting duck. You don't care that in 30 or 50 years Muslims would be majority in Germany and they would have conquered the country without a sward but only by sucking the blood of the infidel to raise 5-6 children and outnumber them. You don't care Germany would become a caliphate and the remaining Germans would be enslaved under the despicable Sharia law. You don't care ordinary, sound minded Germans would be humiliated, kidnapped, raped, butchered on a daily basis. No, you just care about money and profit. Well, guess what, nobody who has sold out to the devil has done "a good deal".
Remember, those who sacrifice security for money, they will lose both.

 

Definitely 'when'. I was just reading on Google News that Paris is still 'on fire', but the BBC hasn't reported very much about Paris for the past 4 or 5 weeks, so I've been thinking the anti-Macron protests are over; evidently not, if you believe this . . .

"Eiffel Tower is shrouded by smoke as Paris burns into the night: Iconic landmark shines through choking black pall after Yellow Vest protesters set cars ablaze for the seventh weekend as they call on Macron to go"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...onstrators-Paris-demonstrations-continue.html

I wonder what else we're not hearing from other EU states? In fact Sweden hasn't been in the news much recently - why could that be?

 

If Merkel didn't say this or something similar to it, I would be surprised. It fits with the "carved-in-stone" narrative of free movement and money across all borders. Its a globalist's dream come true, and she is absolutely a globalist.

 

This is why immigration will not work, btw, there are 47 islamic nations out of 56 nations in the UN
Work it out for yourself....

 

AKA

 

Zionism

 

It's not only communists who were internationalists. Far from it, in fact.

Leading this charge were the Rhodes-Milner Oxford Group of the late 1800's who were all about creating an international order under the leadership of Britain by eradicating what they called "local sovereignty" which meant in plain English the national sovereignty of all the leading nations of the time.

The below are the words of Arnold J Toynbee - very much part of the Rhodes-Milner "Kindergarten" - speaking to Chatham House in 1931:

Page 808, International Affairs Vol. 10 No. 6 (November 1931): The Trend of International Affairs Since the War by Arnold J Toynbee.

Toynbee goes on to write that sovereignty is a "fetish" and "is our intended victim" and that "all our statesmen and our publicists (i.e., the RIIA-Oxford Group) protest with one accord, and over and over again..." but that in reality the idea of national sovereignty "is really being encroached upon and its sphere of action reduced and its power for evil restricted".

As Toynbee makes clear in the earlier part of his paper the whole World had become a market for Western manufactures and for the purpose of the economic unification of the world which would leave the "Hindu or the Chinese peasant" to become a "cog in the great World compelling Western economic machine."

As I have stated earlier the entire project was run by ultra wealthy merchants and fellow travellers (Cecil Rhodes being the wealthiest man in the world at the time) for their future benefit and that of future Western merchant class (today we would call them corporations and the filthy rich).

 

I have to disagree. The Rhodes-Milner Oxford Group was first soon followed by their creature, the Roundtable Movement (1909) then followed by their other creature, the think-tank, Chatham House (RIIA), which was formed 1920.

Then the RIIA's sister organisation, the CFR followed in 1921, of which the leading light was Rockefeller. He had the Trilats founded on his behalf in 1973.

The Bilderberg Conferences were earlier having been founded in 1954 under the auspices of their chairman, the former Nazi SS spy, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. Rockefeller attended that first meeting and was a regular thereafter.

The Nazi connections are to the concept of a corporatist-state symbiosis that Hitler founded with his NSDAP. Prince Bernhard had worked for I G Farben for example, and Farben was a much Hitler as Hitler was Farben.

In the last analysis the internationalist movement - a one world order - is the bastard child of these gentlemen who were business men first and covert manipulators second. The world was to become the playground of the British and Western elite/merchant class.

Further research shows that the Bolsheviks were financed and supported by these people. There's nothing like covering all the bases to ensure ultimate success.

 

Well said, and absolutely accurate.

 

In this sentence, it should be "prey", not "pray". And should read "western people like prey for the taking", not "western people like a pray for the taking".

Just saying.

 

Thanks, I've got some issues, including English in genearal these days. I'm not a native English speaker.
Focused on other things right now.

 

Not a problem, and no insult intended. I'm the son of immigrants who speak English as a second language, so I understand. Takes a lot of practice. Hell, I'm born here in the United States, am almost 60 years, and have a college education and I have problems with English! LOL!

 

Most of the cons on this board want to be nations of one themselves. Some even fantasize about the bombs dropping and becoming the new protagonists of another version of The Book of Eli.

We went to war to abolish slavery. We had already figured out that 13 sovereign states wouldn't work after just a decade of living through it; pity that lesson hasn't sunk in to lot of people even now

 

Very well said. And they harp about "states rights" over and over again, and only end up institutionalizing differences that are completely counter-productive to the national interests.

 

If Europeans want to use the use the USA as a template, as many countries should, then they would also need the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The system in the EU, as it is now, not work. Few know the name of the President of the EU, or really care. Americans would certainly not want their local decisions decided in a foreign country, as do most Europeans and, in fact, many Americans complain now (and rightly so in my opinion) that Washington DC is becoming a power unto itself. People like their decisions made locally so they can have some of feeling of direct democracy, or 'populism' as some would disparage it. The Swiss would be a better example of how people prefer to be governed rather than the trend being established in the US.

It is a general misconception that the US was 'formed by integration and assimilation of very different people from very different countries'. It was largely based on the British system of government and British influences, with a dash of French thrown in. The Founding Fathers made some improvements and concessions, incorporated ideas that were gaining ground at the time (like free speech and enterprise) and a very successful nation was formed. Unless the Europeans are going to adopt the American system entirely it will not work. I can't, for example, see either the First or Second Amendment passing in the Europe of today.

It's clear from your well done post that you're optimistic that something could be done with -according to the OP- less sovereignty for each EU nation and more power in Brussels so they can organize matters on a continental scale. This does not have universal appeal and will lead to more strife rather than peace. All of this is so easily predictable that even discussing such an idea feels absurd.

America created a new culture and a new history in a new land but Europe has far too much of both culture and history to start afresh. Look to Switzerland for ideas rather than Brussels. Thanks.

 

They claim it is about 'tax policy', but does anyone believe that?

 

Sorry, I'm not into that

Have you ever read Hobbes? He tells the truth about what your life would be like under the kind of sovereignty some conservatives seem to want, and I will repeat the old cliche here since it seems I must yet again. Life is "nasty, brutal, coarse and short" as long as we balkanise our nations . Freedom is not preserved by withdrawing from the world but by entering into it

 

the reality is, once AI gets here and it almost is, the world is gonna change more like they want it... there is no stopping it as the jobs wont be there anymore with foreign outsourcing and foreign imports on top of that

 

I think this kind of thing isn't a liberal/progressive movement in nature, but rather using liberal/progressive policies to bring about reform to an existing structure. In other words, I think the entire government is looking to reform themselves by dissolving the nationalist mytho's and fanaticism conservative policies have built up for centuries, but only briefly. They will use this to reform the society into the next stage. This has been done again and again in history. The old power structure is broken up and reformed by liberal/progressive movements and then power is once again consolidated and cemented in conservative, stabilizing policies.

So it's not really liberal government versus conservative government, but government fluctuating between liberal or conservative tactics to achieve certain goals. In other words Angela Merkel is not a liberal or a conservative. She, and more importantly others who probably matter far more, will use liberalism or conservatism to achieve their goals- whichever proves more effective at the time.

 

post deleted

 

And the Lizard Men, bless their scaly hides

 

I am of opinion the yellow jacket violence is orchestrated but will leave it at that.

The main issue for me against the EU is based in its economic and legal structure that strips countries of their autonomy (currencies, some of their laws etc tools used to govern and control their individual economies)... the sacrifice of control came with the promise that the EU would become a second North America ito economic growth but we've seen nothing of the sort, in fact some countries are worse off ito inflation and unemployment.

The "when" is still a way off, we'll see how it fares in this next recession but Europes's banking sector stocks have been hammered in 2018 and 2019 is not looking any better.

 

Gotcha.

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)

?