How Merkel’s Germany Helped Build the Nationalism She Now Warns Against
By Daily Bell Staff - May 16, 2016

Merkel warns of return to nationalism unless EU protects borders  … German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Thursday urged European leaders to protect EU borders or risk a “return to nationalism” as the continent battles its worst migration crisis since World War II.  – Yahoo

Merkel and other Eurocrats are worried about a degeneration of Europe. The idea is that until Europe pulled together as one entity, its quarrelsome nation-states fought one another regularly, culminating in world wars.

But this is a misreading of history. For at least the past 500 years and probably longer, Western elites have been behind the wars that Merkel warns about.

Germany itself formalized colonialism with the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 attended by Western powers.

In fact, the twin motors of modern colonialism and nationalism were Britain’s Cecil Rhodes and German chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Both of these individuals were backed by the monetary elites of their day.

The colonialism that generated today’s nationalism around the world is often portrayed as an uncontrollable surge of Western greed.

But colonialism, certainly in its later stages, was carefully controlled and guided.

At one point, the British colonial empire stretched around the world. It has been portrayed as a political empire but in fact it was a mercantilist, banking empire.

Whether in Africa, South America and Asia, the idea was to build nation states that could later be regionalized into the blocks of world government.

The United Nations and European Union in particular have been advanced as an antidote to bellicose nationalism, just as Merkel suggests. But the wars blamed on nationalism were ones that set in motion by the same elites now promotion globalism.

Words can hardly describe what the European Union will become if it manages to grow unimpeded.

The union’s corruption and insularity, combined with the arrogance of its leaders, is a recipe for the worst kind of authoritarianism.

The best description is that of George Orwell whose vision of the future was a boot stamping on the human face over and over again.

No wonder up to half of countries in the EU now have active Brexit-like movements calling for referendums to leave the union.

This discontent is a direct result of Brussels’s dysfunctional leadership that has thrown the southern half of Europe into an ongoing depression.

In fact, Brussels foisted the euro on European nation-states to create the current EU disaster and force a deeper political union.

The misinformation and manipulations never cease.

The Yahoo article (above) mentions Merkel will be one of more than 50 leaders to participate in the first “world humanitarian summit” in Istanbul toward the end of May.

It is ironic that this summit is being held in Turkey at the same time that the Turkish leader is trying to expand his dictatorship by throwing journalists in jail right and left.

Regarding the meeting, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is quoted as saying, “we will not accept the erosion of humanity which we see in the world today.”

Mr. Ban [noted] that the leaders’ segment will be an opportunity to discuss the five core responsibilities of his Agenda for Humanity.

The five core aims are: political leadership to prevent and end conflict; uphold the norms that safeguard humanity; leave no one behind; change people’s lives – from delivering aid to ending need; and invest in humanity.

These goals are all-encompassing. They are part of the larger UN agenda that envisions instruction and control of every part of human existence, including, most recently the seas (under the UN’s just-promulgated 2030 agenda).

From 500 years of colonialism and nationalism to today’s regionalism and the formation of “unions” around the world, including in Africa, Asia and South America, the goal of incipient globalism remains the same.

The vast wars of the 20th century were pre-planned and prosecuted by those who profited from the chaos and bloodshed. They were blamed on the very nationalism and colonialism that their founders had created in the first place.

Conclusion: The internationalism of leaders like Merkel and Ban are simply part of an ongoing strategy of elite manipulation. Those who let themselves be lulled by the rhetoric, or begin to believe it, will be horrified by the outcome.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!


Biggest Currency Reboot in 100 Years?
In less than 3 months, the biggest reboot to the U.S. dollar in 100 years could sweep America.
It has to do with a quiet potential government agreement you’ve never heard about.

Tagged with:
  • Bruce C.

    You know the ironic thing is that nobody but the globalists have a problem with nationalism. To everyone but them, nationalism is sanity and the preservation of a recognizable and common language and culture.

    I continue to believe that the UK exits the EU, but even if they don’t because that “country” is so screwed up, there will be others that will. I think most Germans are beginning to realize that “potato face” is a fool at best if not a diabolical globalist politician, so Germany may be the first to nationalize, and for many reasons besides immigration.

    • Praetor

      Yep. How interesting would it be. Germany exited before the rest. Germany says, we are a country not a state!!!

    • No Thanks

      Nationalism is just another flavor of identity politics which elites utilize for their own ends. It dismisses individual agency while rationalizing the state. One wonders why anyone would need a central government to act as cultural arbiter.

      It is just one side of the pendulum (Poe’s?), decimating individual liberty. Maybe it is too easy for individuals fed up with forced immigration to react and be drawn to the opposing pole. In doing so, they willfully enter the corral and rationalize further authoritarianism.

      • Bruce C.

        “Nationalism” may not be the only form of social organization or even the most “advanced” but it seems to occur naturally on different levels at this point in human development. Therefore, trying to force people who naturally form and gravitate toward certain languages and cultures to deny those identities just creates chaos. That’s what the EU is. Really, to be consistent, the EU should have removed the names of all the countries within its boundaries, thus becoming a larger “nation” of amalgamated cultures and languages, which ultimately would have formed a common language and culture. Taking that a step further, maybe the idea of one global “nation” is more palatable to some than a planet of many, but I don’t see the advantage. In fact, that would seem to be the least liberating for the individual.

        • No Thanks

          Authorities have subsidized immigration beyond what the market would allow for. Next, people demand more government control over individuals and their travel choices.

          If not for the government intervention in the first case the secondary reaction would not exist.

          You confuse the issue where you accurately observe that people frequently organize themselves into communities. That is not a defense of nationalism, but an obvious observation. You could also remark that the sky is blue, but perhaps that red herring is a bit too obvious? Criticizing nationalism is not the same as defending incentivized immigration or globalism.

          Government intervention is not required to preserve a given culture.

          I find it strange that on a libertarian-anarchist site, that commentators can observe a problem created by government solutions, and then opine for further government solutions. That’s an obvious observation simple enough for anyone to understand.

          • Bruce C.

            If you’re basically arguing for no government/anarchy then fine, but the world (the vast majority) isn’t ready for that. All I’m saying is that the natural communities that people tend to set up comes from within the participants, not imposed by a government. However, governments then tend to form by the very same people within a group as a way of organizing tasks, responsibilities, etc. Maybe you think that step is unnecessary or forced. Maybe, maybe not, but in the meantime, given the state of the world and the mentalities within it, trying to go from resisting the EU to zero government, zero borders, no countries, no nationalism, or whatever you want to call it isn’t going to happen. At least taking a step back and recognizing that globalism is worse than individual, recognizable countries is better than letting it happen because there may not be a way to reverse things at some point.

          • No Thanks

            You deliberately miss the point where you deflect the focus towards the futility of anarchism.

            Governments have incentivized and directed immigration for their own ends. A false dichotomy is presented between globalism and nationalism. Just because the globalist position of the pendulum is undesirable, it does not follow that the nationalist position is desirable.

            The DB repeatedly speaks of these kinds of dialectics. In the end you can expect a synthesis between both options, with all of the authoritarianism of either pole.

            To your remarks about the futility of liberty and anarchism, I think we can both agree that no matter how futile the cause seems, those who are_consistently_concerned with the cause for liberty will agree that we should move forward rather than backwards. Nationalism and globalism are both steps backwards in this regard.

            Fair-weather freedom advocates who allow biases to cloud the issue play into the hands of stereotypes presented by the opposition. This is all by design. Like bugs flying into the zapper, it is easy for propagandists to corral individuals who operate along these lines.

          • Bruce C.

            You’re focusing on government and I’m talking about social groupings. I don’t think it possible at this point in human development for the whole planet to be one big amalgamated culture and so a globalist government would be required to force it and that wouldn’t bode well for individualism. Smaller diverse groups, however, “countries” or “nations”, seem to be a natural formation and the issue of governments at that level is an ongoing issue. The government is not the primary though. That comes after the formation of a culture.

            My understanding of what the DB says is that ruling class, oligarch, elitist, narcissist, etc. people usurp the natural formations of cultures/countries to create conflicts between them, but that’s a problem with them not natural cultural groupings. Why they aren’t “happy” with causing wars between nations is beyond me but yet they claim unification and the breakdown of countries and their cultures is better. That’s what the EU project is about. Maybe that’s better for them but not most. Taking it fully global is the next level.

            Look at parts of the middle east like Iraq. That “country” is NOT a natural formation. It is instead one imposed for geopolitical reasons. In terms of cultures it would probably be parts of three different countries.

            You don’t seem to like globalism and you don’t seem to like many diverse “nations” (thinking they’re just the two sides of the same coin), so I’m not sure what you’re advocating. No government, no “identity politics”, no differing cultures, what?

          • @disqus_edLIbwCTRh:disqus @disqus_zzKWZOeBzL:disqus Now now boys. Be nice! Your both right. 🙂

            People do appear naturally gravitate to groups that are like them in some way or ways – that is tribalism. The word ‘nation’ means two things. 1. people who rub along together in a certain area and the usurped meaning 2. a political construct, a ‘state’. Human society as it has civilised has had taken the tribal leader ‘concept’ and allowed it to morph into rulers – natural leaders have been exchanged for rulers who rule by force (covertly or otherwise).

            On the ground today we have ‘nations’ with rulers everywhere that were and still are contained by taking humans natural desire for nation/tribalism and converted it into the ruler’s means of making the people loyal to their rule. Hence nationalism was, and to some extent still is, encouraged.

            The international money/power that grew from this system of nations under rule, (bound together by nationalism), saw that to take control of nations there was a need for transnational unions of nations into which the nations sovereignty would be dissolved but one prime resistance to this was the old system’s glue of nationalism.

            On one hand this requires that old nationalism is destroyed and on the other a new public support (meme) for transnational and global/international community is being fostered.

            In a free world, a stateless world, there could be no artificial boarders between states because there would be no state to invent or enforce them. There would be the right to property and that would mean whoever owned property could make whatever rules they wished in respect of their property (so long as it did not impinge on the property of others). There would be boarders between property.

            Who knows how that would roll out – we just do not know. There could be unions of property owners who set common preferences within the geographic regions in which they preside. There could be a continuation of tribalism manifesting as nationalism of like people in regional areas or peoples spread across the world such as how the international Jewish community can be seen today. Race could become less important and cultural ideals more so.

            All we know is, given the freedom to do so, the free market in commerce, ideas, preferences, etc. will bring success to those who employ successful strategy and that strategy will spread and develop. That is all we know.

          • No Thanks

            You could also say the same of Germany. From Bavaria to the coastal north, it is a large region which encompasses varying cultures. A unified Germany is a relatively new development on the historical scale. However, I don’t expect the next wave of nationalism to emphasize decentralization.

            I can’t defend your globalist strawmen. If you insist on misconstruing or are unable to follow what I’ve said thus far, then I think we should just leave it here. Thanks.

  • Q46

    The great lengths at enormous politcial and monetary cost to reunite East and West Germany was in the name of nationalism.

    The EU Project is to erase internal borders and individual national and cultural identities to create one super nation with one anthem, flag, government, one military and one common European identity – that is nationalism.

    And France sees the EU as Greater France, although reality is intruding there, it is just dawning on the French it might actually be Greater Deutchland.

  • Pilgrim

    The bigger they are the harder they fall.

  • KellyIsh

    moon’s Agenda for Humanity sounds like Rod Serling’s “To Serve Man.”