In the following video German Chancellor Angela Merkel explains her role in the promotion and implementation of borderless globalization in Europe. Oh, those selfish nation states that refuse to “compromise”!
Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
Video transcript:
| 00:00 | And secondly, there is an attack happening now, not only in Germany, but on the entire | |
| 00:07 | multilateral system. Which forces us to ask the basic question of how we want to | |
| 00:12 | shape globalisation. It was the answer to the Second World War — founding the U.N. | |
| 00:17 | and the European Union. The legitimacy of these multilateral institutions and other | |
| 00:22 | responsible institutions is being questioned. Take the discussions about | |
| 00:27 | the Global Migration Pact from the U.N. It is a non-binding agreement as many of them | |
| 00:35 | are. Completely fundamental questions are being raised. Does the United Nations have | |
| 00:40 | any democratic legitimacy? That’s asked first and then they say the U.N. has no legitimacy. | |
| 00:45 | That is why my first point was to declare that there is a very real legitimacy. Similar to how | |
| 00:52 | every convention is binding because they are based on parliamentary decisions. | |
| 00:56 | Some act as if these parliamentary decisions are no longer valid, because they were made a long | |
| 01:00 | time ago. Others believe they are entitled to make a decision on account of this invalidity and | |
| 01:04 | because they represent the people. Here, I have to say whether it is globalism or a nation state — | |
| 01:10 | It doesn’t matter. The people of a nation are those who live in that country permanently, | |
| 01:15 | not a specific group that define themselves as “the people”. | |
| 01:27 | Even the value of compromise is being questioned. The value of compromise is being | |
| 01:34 | depicted as something that is flawed. | |
| 01:38 | I personally believe that democracy can only function if we are prepared to make | |
| 01:43 | compromises. We should value the act of compromise as a higher good and not devalue | |
| 01:52 | it as something second-rate. We recognise that life between two people, | |
| 01:59 | not to mention a family with children, cannot function without being willing to compromise. | |
| 02:03 | Of course, the other option is that everyone just does their own thing and goes their own way. | |
| 02:07 | We also know that democracy is only viable when we are able | |
| 02:11 | to give up our opinions that we value and hold dear for the collective good. | |
| 02:18 | Accepting compromise. So imagine if the range of our willingness to compromise only extends | |
| 02:24 | to the walls of our national parliaments. If an international agreement is made by someone | |
| 02:29 | representing Germany, it can’t be implemented 100% if parliament isn’t concerned about helping | |
| 02:35 | out others in need, other countries —then action on an international level is no longer possible. | |
| 02:44 | So then there’s the question, what will replace compromise? | |
| 02:50 | Until now it has been my experience that when no compromise is reached then communiqués | |
| 02:54 | are not adopted. Everyone continues as they see fit and I don’t see how that leads to better | |
| 02:59 | coexistence or contributes to fundamental ideas. | |
| 03:03 | With this one word, I’m forced to ask, is it me first? Should I, as a representative of a nation, | |
| 03:10 | step onto the global stage and say, “I must win and I don’t care about everyone else”? | |
| 03:16 | Or should I believe in the possibilities of win-win situations, where I win and others win as well? | |
| 03:23 | This is the issue we are discussing at the moment. | |
| 03:27 | That is why, as long as I am a member of the German parliament, I will urge our parliament to | |
| 03:34 | appreciate compromise and that it understand that this is the heart of democracy. | |
| 03:42 | It should also be understood that German interests are better served when we attend | |
| 03:48 | to the concerns of others, instead of seeing our own interests as absolute. |
“It was the answer to the Second World War — founding the U.N. and the European Union. The legitimacy of these multilateral institutions and other responsible institutions is being questioned.”
They just don’t get it. Or, more accurately, they refuse to get it. The people were NEVER asked. That whole “consent of the governed” thing was just brushed aside.
And because it was just brushed aside the entire globalist superstructure is rightfully being questioned.
I thought this mutt had been ousted. Why is she still the leader of Germany? She obviously has no loyalty to that country.
“I personally believe that democracy can only function if we are prepared to make compromises. We should value the act of compromise as a higher good and not devalue it as something second-rate.”
What about compromise with evil, Ms. Merkel? Is it still a higher good when you make deals with the devil?
And this is an interesting point of view as well, coming from someone who opened a nation’s borders wide to everybody in the world:
“The people of a nation are those who live in that country permanently, not a specific group that define themselves as “the people”.”
Ask Merkel about compromise with the politicians who were her allies until it was time to stab them in the back and hound them out of office so she could advance to the next level of power.
Ms. Merkel is attempting to equate a defined social unit, the family, with an undefined social category, the permanent resident. Then, after invoking compromise as being necessary for the family, invokes compromise for the ‘collective good’ thus elevating the collective good of the Germany that she has created to the status of family.
Such remarks leave me to wonder whether Ms. Merkel has ever had or raised a family. Family is a defined social unit that is comprised of a father, a mother, and children. The father and mother are married and as such are in covenant agreement as to how they will live their lives together. The only compromises are on either minutiae that are a matter of personal taste or on decisions for future actions when the choices appear to be equal and again, it is a matter of personal choice. The foundational principles of their marriage and household are never a matter of compromise. However, that is not what Ms. Merkel is stating in her speech. to all appearances, she expects the family, and ultimately the German people group to compromise for the greater COLLECTIVE good which to all appearances will be dictated by the parliamentary majority as befits a democracy.
Here Ms. Merkel misses the point of good governance. While democracy is workable on the local level, it is very unwieldy on the national level. Even the Etruscans, later the Romans, knew this. SPQR was Senatus populesque Romanus, (the senate and the people of Rome) with each body answerable to the other.
In Europe this is no longer the case and Ms. Merkel is very well aware of this. that is why she invoked family, compromise, and greater good so as to play at the heart strings of the populace while fending off challenges to a rather obvious transition to socialism that will bring back the worst of Der Drei Reich. She could also be playing Good Cop to the Bad Cop who is lurking in the wings as it were. The Bad Cop, true to the spirit of Charles Martel, AKA Charlemagne, would willingly wade in the blood of those he had slaughtered for their refusal to pledge their allegiance to their socialist masters as demanded and abandon their insolent questioning of what the government thought would be best for them.
Ms. Merkel is obviously speaking a warning, and out of both sides of her mouth. The straight speech would seem to say, “Agree with me and question me no more, or else!”
I think you have that correctly. Merkel is known as a fuzzy, inchoate speaker. Her logic is probably not worthy of much analysis, except for the underlying message: I have power over you.
add. Merkel did have a family. A protestant preacherman who moved from West Germany to the communist part in the fifties.Go figure. That type of family provided many of the RAF Terrorists in the seventies. The so called Gutmenschen are often to be found among the protestant ilk. I would like to ask Siegmund Freud about it. Some children of the above mentioned were among the least palatable of my students, real pains the neck.
What is it with the Germans and their dog-like obedience to the dictator Merkel?
Why is there neither the power nor the will to lock up the clearly insane traitor Merkel ,who has opened the city gates to the enemies of the German people in particular ,the European people in general?
Didn’t it occur to the German people to put in place a system of checks and balances on the Chancellor’s power after World War 2?
Surely the rise of Hitler was enough of a salutary lesson on the dangers of dictatorship?
Merkel is just another reiteration of Hitler- she is leading Germany and Europe into World War 3.
Merkel is more like Hitler was of the end of WWII than she is like he was at the beginning.
Her popularity has plummeted and her big idea is in tatters, yet she talks as though none of this has happened.
Remember, the Nazis did not achieve an actual majority vote until Hitler was already chancellor and had control over the election process. Once the state asserts power, it’s not so easy to control the political process, even with a majority. And the state control over communications assures that most Germans have only a vague idea of the real choices to be made.
As far as World War III, look to our own neocons like Bill Kristol and establishment conservatives who want to supply military equipment to a hostile neighbor of Russia, ring Russia with missile emplacements, and want to attempt to topple the government of China. All the while, strengthening NATO ties with Turkey, which is probably, historically, the biggest threat to Europe.
as a matter of fact , checks and balances do exist, parliament and supreme court are independant…. but wait a second! Many of the lawmakers depend on their income because they never learned a decent trade, especially among the greens and lefts, who in my youth were the fiercest enemies of CDU/CSU and FDP( liberals). I wouldn’ t know of any lawyer, doctor or professor in their ranks. Mostly no degrees, not even in psychobabble subjects. Now they support Merkel.Unbelievable. The supreme court judges are appointed by parliament, so it ‘ s not a hard guess by whom. These people can turn to be sycophants, but were generally successful in their profession.
Merkel is either a liar or a fantasist, as is anyone who professes to believes in ‘win-win’ situations.
She says compromise is necessary for democracy, but what she really means is that people must compromise their way of viewing the world so that she doesn’t have to compromise hers.
Culture is a taken as given and when things are going well one tends to live in it rather than be aware of it. Ironically, but inevitably, Merkel and the rest of the European traitor class have been the catalyst in the growth in interest in and awareness of European culture: Their defence of the alien cultures that they’ve encouraged to grow in our midst has made us much more aware of our own culture than we otherwise would have been.
Wow, who’d a’ thunk?
I enjoyed this video. It showed the face of a loser. The tired, perfunctory applause of the audience said it all.
I thought it might be interesting to analyze the formal and informal fallacies in Frau Merkel’s speech, but gave up a third of the way in, because the analysis was too dispiriting.
It can be quite hard deciding just what Frau Merkel really believes, sometimes, and what she just says and does for personal advantage. She certainly does not think of herself as a Christian Democrat, or act like one, and that alone should have disqualified her long ago.
Instead, under cover of compromise, she is conducting a grand experiment on Germany, unlike any it has been through before. And like any act of original research, her experiment will likely yield a negative result, that is, her irresponsible experiment will fail.
It is sad to think about how a great country and so many good people will likely suffer the results.
Merkel climbed to power through systematic and consistent backstabbing of her allies and friends. It’s an interesting exercise, though ultimately futile, to analyze her inconsistencies, as she and the political milieu care only about power and control. Appealing to reason with Merkel is like trying to talk a tarantula out of biting you with sweet logic.
I don’t know if I’ve ever heard a world leader speak in such vague generalities. This discourse wouldn’t even pass muster in a graduate seminar.
No wonder Trump has so many devotees.
I knew it! Germany has squirreled spies in the Vatican. One nabbed this nutty gem from Pope Francis’ dressing table and handed it off to her.
How does Merkel want to shape globalization? Globalization is nothing but oligarchical collectivism to Merkel. There’s an elitist ruling class who’ve been working since 1914 for just that. The European Union is the direct result and fruition of what her previous oligarch did in Germany from 1933 to 1945. The EU was indeed the answer to the European question the national socialists wanted beginning in 1945. This was their plan to shape globalization all along. Ever since their “League” of Nations then morphed into being “United” by 1945. Because you need to understand this is how these elitist oligarchical collectivists “shape” globalization. What they want are ten economic regions for the entire planet. Ten kingdoms with ten oligarchs. In North America it’s the union of Canada, Mexico and what used to be a Constitutional Republic. But soon we will all see ten consolidated regions after the coming engineered economic reordering. The ramifications of this is Biblical.
Merkel’s “non-binding” United Nations Global Migration Pact is like trying to mix iron and clay together. The ramifications to which are also Biblical. Merkel and Macron are trying to enforce the cultural homogenization of people because their wish is to destroy one or both for their Hegelian Dialectic of creating their global citizenry who will march together for the one state as one people under one leader. There’s nothing new about such nihilistic behavior either. EIN VOLK! EIN REICH! EIN FUHRER! At this point I’d take Merkel very, very seriously because they plan to annihilate anyone who opposes their utopian oligarchical collective just like they did before. “The people” as any ethnic group defines itself as doesn’t matter as she so plainly explains it to you all. You all mean nothing to her until you compromise to her “one” ideal. Oh, and you will be made to compromise I can assure you that’s exactly what she means. Or else you will be made a criminal of some hate crime and thrown into a cell to either conform or die. Because Merkel’s interests in this are absolute and uncompromising as she has proven.
But then the ramifications of all of this are purely Biblical. So much in fact that we already know how all of this will eventually end exactly as we know it will. When we see the Islamic Republic of Iran’s military forces along with several allies invade from Syria where they now reside, across the Golan Heights into northern Israel’s Jezreel Valley to be destroyed on those northern mountains as well as Damascus destroyed everyone will be made to surely understand. Everyone except for Merkel that is.