The “migrants” and nationalism: Angela Merkel speaks
Angela Merkel gave an uncharacteristically impassioned speech about a subject dear to her heart: “migration” policy. Merkel was defending Germany’s support of the UN-backed Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, which has been rejected by the United States, Hungary, Austria, Israel, Australia and Poland, and which certain political factions in Germany are questioning, as well.
The agreement would be non-binding, so it’s hard to know in what way it would really be enforced. It seems to me mostly a declaration of intent, but an important one to Merkel, which is no surprise given her influential legacy in terms of immigration policy not just for Germany but for the EU as a whole.
Here’s one of the most quoted statements from her speech:
…Merkel trained her sights on “those who believe they can solve all problems on their own and only have to think of themselves — that’s nationalism in its purest form, not patriotism.”
That’s a strawman, of course. I cannot think of a single country that believes it can “solve all problems” on its own, a country that is so isolated that it doesn’t have multiple treaties, trade agreements, and all sorts of relations with other countries.
What’s more, there are some problems that countries must solve on their own. One happens to be setting the rules about who it lets in and who it bans, for what purposes and for how long, and how to go about defending its own borders. After all, what makes a nation a nation in the first place? Each nation decides on a form of government, of course, as well as how to pass laws and finance that government, but one of the clearest and most important tasks of any nation is defending its boundaries by making decisions about entry, immigration, and citizenship.
A nation without defined and defended boundaries is not a nation. Instead, it’s an undefined geographic area that is at the mercy of other nations to define it. If a nation surrenders its right to make the rules about its own boundaries and who will live within them as citizen or as temporary visitor, than the nation is no longer a nation because other people and other nations will decide on its makeup and population.
But protecting its own borders and its own definition of citizenry and how to achieve it is not the sort of problem-solving Merkel has in mind. I think the following is very telling:
…Merkel warned against thinking that migration is an issue “that one country can solve on its own.”
But of course migration is not an issue any one nation can solve on its own. Migration occurs all over the globe for a wide variety of reasons by a wide variety of people. But most countries are not trying to solve the general problem of migration. They are trying to solve a rather different problem: who to let into their own country.
The leaders around the world who object to the UN agreement are quite clear about what they see as the threat of agreeing to it: the surrender of their sovereign right to make such decisions as a nation. They consider that right to be a feature, whereas Merkel and those who agree with her consider it a bug.
For example, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison had this to say:
“The global compact on migration would compromise Australia’s interest,” Morrison told 2GB Radio. “It doesn’t distinguish between those who illegally enter Australia and those who come the right way.”
And Israel’s Netanyahu said:
“I have instructed the Foreign Ministry to announce that Israel will not accede to, and will not sign, the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration,” the prime minister said. “We are committed to guarding our borders against illegal migrants. This is what we have done, and this is what we will continue to do.”
Trump has already spoken on the subject:
“We recognize the right of every nation in this room to set its own immigration policy in accordance with its national interests, just as we ask other countries to respect our own right to do the same – which we are doing,” he said. “That is one reason the United States will not participate in the new Global Compact on Migration. Migration should not be governed by an international body unaccountable to our own citizens. Ultimately, the only long-term solution to the migration crisis is to help people build more hopeful futures in their home countries. Make their countries great again.”
This seems completely obvious, and not too long ago would have had the support of the vast majority of people not just in the US but all over the world. No more.
[NOTE: Please see this previous post of mine for more about nationalism and some of the background to the post-WWII movement against it in Europe. For example, compare Merkel’s speech to this excerpt from author Thomas Mann’s 1947 introduction to Herman Hesse’s (both Germans) novel Demian:
If today, when national individualism lies dying, when no single problem can any longer be solved from a purely national point of view, when everything connected with the “fatherland” has become stifling provincialism and no spirit that does not represent the European tradition as a whole any longer merits consideration…
Sounds like Merkel, doesn’t it, just expressed a bit more elegantly?]
Again, refugees are properly cared for in countries adjacent to the political or environmental shock which generated the refugee flow, with a view to their eventual repatriation. The only circumstances in which this is not the preferred policy would be when the society in question is a giant prison (Cuba, North Korea), when the possibility of mass slaughter is an abiding condition in the locus in question (quite possibly Burma in re the Rohingya, Darfur, Rwanda, Burundi), or when someone deeply enmeshed in the political life of his country shows up at your doorstep with his dependents (with a good explanation as to why he avoided other countries en route). For occidental countries, that generally means you’re admitting retail a scatter of newspaper editors and the like.
Angela Merkel, consulting no one else, triggered a mass inflow of feral young men and some camp followers thereof in 2015. Germany then began a campaign of bullying more sensible European governments into acquiescing to German policy. If a successor government tries her for treason, that would not be unjust.
For over 40 years, Germans of child-bearing age have been notable for a disinclination to … bear children. You’d have to increase the size of annual birth cohorts by around 60% to achieve replacement levels of fertility in Germany. France has been successful in this regard. Germany has not. What Steve King said is absolutely true: you cannot build your civilization with someone else’s babies.
Germany and lots of Europeans and even some Americans think World War I was caused by “nationalism.” It was not. It was caused by, among other things, alliances. Germany had an unstable ruler but it was pulled into the war by its alliance with Austria, and France, because of its fear of Germany, had joined with Russia as an ally, which created more fear by Germany.
It was caused by the political ambitions of various parties, who had constructed alliances to protect themselves. I’ll advance a thesis. What made it so destructive was
1. Bad military tactics and strategy
2. An unwillingness as late as 1917 to consider negotiated compromise. (Note Aldous Huxley’s contention in 1932 that the last conservative in Britain had been the 5th Marquess of Landsdowne, whose letter to The Times advocating a compromise settlement to the war of a sort modal in the 18th century The Times refused to print).
3. An indifferently structured peace on top of which you had bad monetary policy.
Note pictures in various European capitals in the Summer of 1914 with masses of the public cheering on the War. Chauvinism was a problem. The problem with Eurotrash elites is that they proceed as if every kind of national pride is flagitious. Switzerland is a proud country, pugnacious when it needs to be; it’s been a danger to no one.
Bad military tactics and strategy
The machine gun changed everything. The American Civil War showed that trenches and defense were stronger in the presence of the Minie’ ball. That, for the first time, made muzzle loading rifles accurate in mass production settings. Before that rifles had to be hand made.
The Maxim Machine Gun was ignored by the US military, which did not even use the Browning BAR in World War I because they were afraid the Germans would copy it.
The British should have understood it’s implications for the offense.
The Maxim gun was first used by Britain’s colonial forces in 1893–1894 First Matabele War in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). During the Battle of the Shangani, 700 soldiers fought off 5,000 warriors with just five Maxim guns. It played an important role in the swift European colonization of Africa in the late 19th century. The extreme lethality was employed to devastating effect against obsolete charging tactics, when native opponents could be lured into pitched battles in open terrain.
They also ignored it.
By World War I, many armies had moved on to improved machine guns. The British Vickers machine gun was an improved and redesigned Maxim, introduced into the British Army in 1912 and remaining in service until 1968. Production took place at Erith in Kent, and some models were fitted to early biplanes also fabricated there. The German Army’s Maschinengewehr 08 and the Russian Pulemyot Maxim were both more or less direct copies of the Maxim.
But no new tactics were developed until Churchill suggested the tank.
You hit it with the third word, “strawman.” If we aren’t racist bigots, they have no other argument.
“Those who believe they can solve all problems on their own and only have to think of themselves…”
Funny, she sounds quite a bit like France’s Macron. (How do you say “echo chamber” in EU-an?…)
Still, she’s right in a way—indisputably—since following her own logic (or, actually, her own definition), if there are no nation states (aka Paradise Regained), then those (non-existent) nation states (since they’re in a state of non-existence) won’t need to “solve” any problems. (How do you say “circular argument” in EU-an?)
Ergo, clearly, in M & M dream world, ensuring that your country does NOT exist in any political sense of the word is the highest form of patriotism. And it is the duty of every patriotic Frenchman and German (not to mention, Dutchman and Italian, et al.) to fight tooth and nail for the disappearance of their country as a political unit. (No wonder those yellow-vested protesters are so loathed by the elites—I mean who would be so gauche as to even think of wearing yellow?)
Funny (there’s that word again) though that in the EU, Germany is top dog, with France desperately (la gloire?) trying to claw her way back to at least parity…even if everyone knows that’s pure fantasie.
And so, down the rabbit hole, with ever greater velocity, we go….
As is only rarely pointed out by the MSM, before becoming the leader of a re-unified Germany, Merkel used to be an East German Communist, which makes me wonder just how much love and sympathy for today’s’ Germany and it’s people–far more Western than Eastern, far more capitalist than communist–Merkel really has.
Moreover, in common with a lot current European leaders, Merkel is childless, which some commenters think makes each one of them leaders who don’t have the kind of concern for the future that they would have, if they had children.
I happen to think that when future historians–say, 30 or 40 years in the future–look back at what Merkel and her policies have “accomplished,” Merkel will be judged to have done more harm to Germany and Germans than any German leader in modern times, Hitler included.
I do not believe it too strong a statement to say that Merkel’s immigration policies have a good chance of destroying the German nation, and Germans as a distinct ethnic group ruling their own country.
MikeK @3:53 PM above, your mention of the Maxim gun reminds me of Belloc’s sardonic lines about it’s role in Great Britain’s colonial wars in the later 19th Century:
“Whatever happens, we have got
the Maxim gun and they…have not.”
It may be (this is pure speculation on my part of course) that one of the reasons for the shortcomings in British tactics early in WWI was that while the British military had used machine guns effectively they had never had to fight an enemy who had machine guns of his own.
My give a damn was busted long ago. I don’t care about the reasons these illegal aliens have for fleeing their failed countries, it is not our problem. There are legal procedures for entering our country. Follow them. Otherwise, we have the right to repeal the invasion by whatever means we deem appropriate. Period.
BTW, western Europe is kaput. Barry and the shrew queen created the mess in former Libya. And Turkey is aiding the ‘migrant’ invasion. The only question is whether Berlin or Paris will be the capital of the new Caliphate.
I’m reminded of the classic leftie-pacifist aphorism: “War doesn’t solve anything.”
Actually, war does solve things. Such as slavery in the US and concentration camps in Nazi Germany. I don’t say so to recommend war, but to give it its due.
What leftie-pacifists really mean is “War doesn’t solve everything.” And with that strawman, they move on to their preferred, sure-fire solutions.
while the British military had used machine guns effectively they had never had to fight an enemy who had machine guns of his own.
Good point. The tactics (I read a book about this long ago) were still based on Napoleon’s wars when muzzle loading muskets could not hit a man at 100 yards. The Germans had observers with Lee in the Civil War but they should have been with Sherman. He previewed Patton, who was distantly related, with maneuver war.
No, she hasn’t caused as much damage as Hitler, but she has dramatically accelerated the decline of Germany. She has permitted and encouraged the entry of people who don’t want to be German. Our goal in the USA is to permit the entry of people who want to become Americans and to merge with us.
Very well put, Kate.
.
Folks might be interested in a talk given last year at Dartmouth by Dr. Stephen Kotkin, who’s a prof of history or poli-sci (or both, I forget) at Princeton, entitled “War, Revolution, Socialism, War.” In particular, he begins with a bit on some of the causes of WW I.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcE3jaMuuy8
The EU.’s support for the UN-backed “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration” is a suicide pact. Only cultural, ethnic and political suicide can atone for Europe’s ancestral sins.
Art Deco,
“Angela Merkel, consulting no one else, triggered a mass inflow of feral young men and some camp followers thereof in 2015.”
Reportedly, polls show that even now the majority of Western Europeans support open borders and unrestricted migration.
“What Steve King said is absolutely true: you cannot build your civilization with someone else’s babies.”
Europe already has (had) a civilization, there’s really nothing left to ‘build’. Were King more astute he’d have observed that, ‘you cannot retain a civilization with babies from culturally antithetical migrants’. But that more accurate observation would immediately be labeled ‘racist’, which is probably one factor in King’s inability to awaken from his delusional liberality. What he likely fails to understand that W. Europe’s leaders are committed in their delusion that Europe can be ‘fundamentally transformed’ with culturally antithetical migrants.
Mikek, appropo to your comment at 3:25;
In 1888, Otto von Bismark presciently observed that, “One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans.” BTW, that unstable German ruler fired Bismark in 1890 because he didn’t agree enough with young Kaiser Wilhelm II.
Assistant Village Idiot @ 4:41;
Bingo.
“in common with a lot [of] current European leaders, Merkel is childless, which some commenters think makes each one of them leaders who don’t have the kind of concern for the future that they would have, if they had children.” Snow on Pine
That brings to mind this astute observation; “The grandchild, far from being incidental, is decisive. Civilization persists when there is a widespread sense of an ethical obligation on the part of the present generation for the well-being of the third generation —their own grandchildren.
A society where this feeling is not widespread may last as a civilization for some time—indeed, for one or two generations it might thrive spectacularly. But inevitably, a society acknowledging no transgenerational commitment to the future will decay and decline from within.” —Lee Harris, “The Future of Tradition”
“Turkey is aiding the ‘migrant’ invasion. The only question is whether Berlin or Paris will be the capital of the new Caliphate.” parker
This picture, taken at an Oct. meeting in Istanbul says it all… Merkel and Macron; clueless. Putin… content. Erdogan just looks tired…?
In the event that W. Europe falls to Islam, I predict that Eastern Europe will be forced to return to the Russian embrace to fend off the Caliphate. Some say that “demographics is destiny”, if so… so is geography.
I’m betting Europe will return to its bloodthirsty mean before it allows Muslims to take over. And it will be pretty nasty.
[Thomas Mann’s intro to “Demian”] [s]ounds like Merkel, doesn’t it, just expressed a bit more elegantly?
neo: I got the same shivers when I read the Merkel quote. I encountered “Demian” at a much too formative age and remember the Mann warning.
Geez. I can’t imagine the horror of WW I and WW II being fought in my living room. I understand how the Europeans got wedged into their present paralysis. I don’t know how they emerge from it.
But past the short-term, straight-line projections are usually wrong. I appreciate the Mark Steyns of the world sounding demographic alarms. Those are real. However, humans are not dependably passive. They respond to reality, if belatedly, and when they do, they often bring great resourcefulness to bear.
“I cannot think of a single country that believes it can ‘solve all problems’ on its own, a country that is so isolated that it doesn’t have multiple treaties, trade agreements, and all sorts of relations with other countries.”
DPRK
Reportedly, polls show that even now the majority of Western Europeans support open borders and unrestricted migration.
Reportedly where?
Merkel used to be an East German Communist,
No, she was a member of one of the sham parties operating in East Germany, presumably for professional advancement. After 1946, the East German Communists suborned the leadership of extant political parties in East Germany and you had these shell parties operating for the next 40-odd years. The same occurred in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Bulgaria. For whatever reason, Helmut Kohl’s Christian Democrats thought it advisable to incorporate members of their East German namesake and successfully conferred legitimacy on them. The first competitive elections in East Germany were won by this organization.
Europe already has (had) a civilization, there’s really nothing left to ‘build’. Were King more astute he’d have observed that, ‘you cannot retain a civilization with babies from culturally antithetical migrants’.
You’re a pest.
A fascinating piece in the current Claremont Review point out the population of Sub-Saharan (black) Africa will double from its present 1.25 billion to 2.5 billion by 2050.
The writer asks, what will Europe then do to stop a migration of 1 billion or more uneducated young hordes from Africa, given the current mindset of Merkel and Macron may persist?
Thank God for the Atlantic Ocean!
And build the Wall!
The solution is painfully obvious:
Since the Pope and his ilk believe that migrants’ rights prevail over borders, the only solution is to send all migrants to the place on Earth which has no borders: Antarctica! No borders, no walls, no border guards, no entry requirements, no work papers required, what could be better!
MikeK — the British also had observers in the U.S. Civil War. It should have been apparent to them that infantry could not charge in line against a prepared position and survive. The Maxim gun merely added to the carnage. (Were Gatling guns used in the Civil War, I don’t recall? They were certainly available shortly afterwards.)
submandave:
North Korea is tremendously dependent on China. See this.
And these countries have diplomatic relations with North Korea. See also this.
Richard Saunders @3:05 PM above, the Gatling gun did see limited use in the U.S. Civil War. From the Wikipedia article on Gatling guns:
“The Gatling gun was first used in warfare during the American Civil War. Twelve of the guns were purchased personally by Union commanders and used in the trenches during the siege of Petersburg, Virginia (June 1864 – April 1865).[11] Eight other Gatling guns were fitted on gunboats.[12] The gun was not accepted by the American Army until 1866…”
John F. Mac,.. and
In 1914 the armies of both sides started to learn that smokeless powder cartridges (1880’s development approx.) fired from rifle and machine guns and high explosives in artillery made all the battlefields exceptionally deadly for anyone who wasn’t dug in. The British Expeditionary Force (the BEF, aka the Old Contemptables) decimated the German army with rifle fire (not machine guns) in the First Battle of Ypres 1914 (look up “the Kindermorte”). Existing offensive tactics no longer worked. Also, rapid firing artillery with high explosive or shrapnel shells made massed, exposed, infantry tactics suicidal. Even the tank, first used in 1916, didn’t break the primacy of defensive positions until the summer and fall of 1918, when tactics were implemented against the Germans that coordinated tanks, artillery, infantry, and airplanes.
According to reports, 40 year old Honduran Maria Meza, the women in the propaganda picture–carried by virtually every outlet in the MSM–running with a couple of her children during the tear gassing of those trying to crash our border in Mexico a few days ago, has 9 children (one of them already across the border in the U.S with her husband) who I presume she expects us here in the U.S. to take care of, likely in perpetuity–food, clothing, housing, medical care, education, etc.–if she somehow manages to crash the border.
I note that while she says she was trying to “escape the threat of gangs to her children–drugs for the boys, becoming a “girlfriend” of gang members for the girls–and low wages in Honduras,” she still, for some reason, left three of her children back in Honduras.
See https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/11/maria-meza-tear-gas-caravan-migrant-mom-has-nine-children-one-living-in-louisiana-the-past-two-years/
Funny how none of these people who have made the trip up to our border and want to bust through our border and into the land of free stuff, were not willing to remain in their own countries, trying to improve things there.
I guess its a lot easier to just bust through our front door and squat, uninvited, in our house, waiting for us to take care of them and all their dependents.
P.S. Want to know one of them major reasons that California is in such bad financial shape?
How about the largest number of illegal aliens in the country, at a cost to California of an estimated $30+ billion dollars per year, close to 18% of the state’s entire annual budget.
See https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/02/21/costs-illegal-immigration-california/