Friedrich Merz: One country´s actions can trigger a chain reaction

When Merz predecessor, Angela Merkel, decided to open Germany´s borders, she could not foresee the problems that her approach would create. Suddenly, there were conflicts all over the EU when countries like Poland and Hungary rejected her open borders policies. She lived to regret her decision when she publicly stated "Multikulti ist Tot" and mass migration became so intense that it threatens Schengen Treaty arrangements. In her case, her decision did not involve engaging Germany in an all out war.

Friedrich Merz decision to authorize the use of German long range weapons against the Russian Federation is a completely different cup of tea with catastrophic consequences. Berlin has been told, over and over again (by Berlin I mean the German authorities) that such measure will in effect mean a declaration of war against the Russian Federation and that, therefore, the Russian Federation will be entitled to attack Germany. What Friedrich Merz has done, unitelaterally, is to put every single NATO country on a direct collision course with the Russian Federation.  Now, how can the Russian Federation attack Germany? Nuclear War.

Herr Merz got elected with less than 24% of the vote, taking into account that CDU did not get 24% of the vote. CDU/CSU got about 24% of the vote. His coalition partner - SPD - got 16% of the vote. It remains to be known what the German public actually thinks about Friedrich Merz statement and about the consequences of such statement. 

Friedrich Merz took such decision not as a NATO member. This was not a NATO decision. It was Germany´s decision, but it is a far reaching decision that will undermine Europe. I would say that such decision is not supported by Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Article 5 refers to defense, not offense. 

Now, Chancellor Merz sent a Panzer group to Lithuania, a country that is pretty close to the Russian Federation. It is easy to see that if there is war between the Russian Federation and Germany then German forces in Lithuania will be targetted. 

We have not seen any reactions from other European countries. Do other countries want to be involved in an all out war? Like Angela Merkel, Friedrich Merz had no consultations with other European countries regarding the statement that he just made. Is this a German thing? i.e. making decisions that will affect everybody else, without even asking what other people in the European Union think about it?

This confirms my belief that Britain´s exit from the European Union was a very good thing. I also believe that dismantling NATO would be the next good thing. Why? Because one country can create a disaster for everybody else. So, if Germany wants war with the Russian Federation, Germany alone can pay the price of such a disastrous decision.

 

EU heats up: Olaf Scholz urgent travel to the Russian Federation

The announcement by Ukraine that it would halt vital supplies to the European Union prompted German Chancellor Olaf Scholz urgent trip to the Russian Federation.

Energy has been the key for the survival of the European Union and most importantly for the most important country of the European Union, the Federal Republic of Germany. Without energy, German manufacturing strength and support of its political system are in doubt. 

Germany faces a Federal Election in a few weeks time and the financial and industrial outcome is not brilliant. In the words of Alexander Gauland, co-founder of Alternative für Deutschland - the worse the situation becomes, the better for Alternative für Deutschland - and things are getting pretty bad. Ukraine is threatening the survival of the European Union. To make matters worse, an attack perpetrated today in Germany caused the death of several people and more than a 100 people were injured. It  does not play well in German politics when migration is one of the hottest topics.

As President Bill Clinton stated, 'it is the economy, stupid'. The German economy, its political stability, migration and geopolitical games are part of the same package.

The assertion that Alternative für Deutschland is the only political party that can save Germany did not go well with the usual culprits of the so called mainstream political parties that are used to win elections lying about those who challenge a disastrous status quo.

Angela Merkel started the debacle when she panicked and decided to get rid of nuclear power making Germany practically entirely dependent on foreign energy imports. The now former coalition headed by Olaf Scholz did the rest by associating itself with a warmongering movement that compromised vital energy supplies. No nuclear power, no oil, no gas. What could go wrong?

Olaf Scholz knows full well that energy shortages will be politically disastrous for so called mainstream political parties that do not protect fundamental German interests. Olaf Scholz knows in what could be the last days of his political career as German Chancellor that there are even greater risks that could lead to the disintegration of the European Union. There are conflicting interests within the European Union and this could well push countries to secede to follow their own paths. The promised Paradise looks increasingle like Hell on Earth.

Alternative for Germany - Is there an Alternative for Germany?

 

Is there an Alternative for Germany?

When the ruling SPD barely gets about 5% and his partners in the ruling coalition - Greens and FDP - get even less in state elections in Germany, something surely must change. Next stop? Brandenburg. If a disaster of the scale of what happened in Thuringen and Saxony also happens in Brandenburg then the ruling coalition must surely question its own future.

SPD and CDU quickly reacted proposing a ban on migration from two countries after lamentable events, but this did not seem to be enough to persuade voters to support the ruling coalition. In Thuringen, AfD got more votes than CDU and in Saxony the difference in favour of CDU was minimal compared to the level of support for AfD.

With Federal Elections around the corner, surely this is something to very much worry about. Geopolitical issues are dividing Germany, but internal issues seem to be equally divisive.

Immigration is being rejected by both sides of the political spectrum. A rising movement of the left is also anti-immigration.

The question is: have voters from both left and right of the political spectrum had enough of open borders? Let's remember that the official stance has been to punish Hungary for its reluctance to accept open borders. This beggars the question: are so called mainstream political parties out of tune? 

If they try to swim against the tide they will continue loosing support. SPD has even tried to ban Alternative für Deutchland. What will the argument in favour of banning Alternative für Deutschland? They got more than 30% of support and we got less than 6% and therefore we need to ban them because they are winning against us?

The Greens are the loudest party in favour of war in Europe. Do the Greens understand that their policies and stances are not supported by a vast number of German voters who have had enough of warmongers?

 

China and Uruguay strengthen bilateral relations that go beyond trade

China and Uruguay strengthen bilateral relations at all levels, including trade but not exclusively trade. President Luis Alberto Lacalle Pou is in Beijing for the signature of important agreements with a country that already receives 56% of Uruguayan exports.

Uruguay is a key geographic player with full access to Antarctica and the South Atlantic having some of the best deep water harbours in the region. Somebody that was already remarked by other Asian nations seeking to exploit the riches of Antarctica and of the South Atlantic.

The Uruguayan President has long seen bilateral agreements outside Mercosur as the key for Uruguay development, taking Uruguay away from the straightjacket of a trading block. It is not about leaving Mercosur, but about looking towards the rest of the world and especially towards new trade agreements in distant parts of the planet.

We do not know what will the Argentinian position since President Elect Javier Milei and his political partners in the Argentinian Parliament still need to decide what is needed to curb the inflationary process in Argentina. One needs to assume that for while internal matters both financial and political will be seen as immediate priorities. With regards to Brazil, President Lula is still interested in an agreement with the European Union, agreement that in view of present positions in Europe seems to be distant.

When comparing trade agreements, the European Union is a very small fraction of world markets. In demographic terms, Europe is an even smaller fraction compared to India, China, Russia and other world operators and this includes Africa - a massive continent with a vast amount of resources.

For Uruguay, anything that limits Uruguay's capacity to trade with the rest of the world is something to get rid of. Paraphazing what was said by Hungary when Hungary joined the European Union, 'we are going to accept that benefits Hungary and reject what does not benefit Hungary'. By the way, the music of the Uruguayan National Anthem was composed by a Hungarian composer. 
 

Teaching children about fairness is the wrong thing to do. The world is about power.

The world is about power. Not fairness.

We have spent generations after generations teaching children about fairness and giving them a very idealitic view of the world that is not real. The world is run by opposites and a status quo is established when all parties know that there is a risk when trying to go beyond that status quo. This is why borders tend to be respected but borders can suddenly change as a consequence of a conflict. If a party is not strong enough to prevent a change of borders then it becomes a conflict leading to a fait accompli and a new status quo is established.

The history of the world is a history of changing boundaries and conflicts. Is there a country that wasn't born because of conflict? Wars of aggression, wars of independence, wars, wars, wars. The United States of America celebrate today the 4th of July and the Declaration of Independence, but even after the 1776 Declaration of Independence fighting went on. So the creation and further expansion of the United States of America happened because of wars. Bloodshed allowed the expansion of the United States of America.

The same can be said of many other countries and this tends to be the rule rather than the exception and it is still happening and will continue to happen.

When you look at the map of the British Empire, after a series of expansions came contraction. Territorial acquisitions overseas were lost and even the borders within the British Isles changed. Until 1920, the United Kingdom comprised also the entirety of the islando of Ireland. Since 1920, as a consequence of a treaty, the Republic of Ireland with its capital Dublin was established and Ulster/Northern Ireland in the north remained as a integral part of the United Kingdom. Should movements towards the independence of Scotland eventually succeed or if suddenly Ulster becomes part of a united Ireland because of the Sinn Fein/Ira electoral successes in Northern Ireland caused by both a sudden change of the mood between communities or simply because of demographics - Catholic families tend to have more children, once again the borders of the United Kingdom will be redrawn. One thing we can take from history is that the presumptions in terms of borders can suddenly change. Yugoslavia is a perfect of example of a country that imploded leading to many different countries. In the case of Yugoslavia, the fact is that Yugoslavia itself was from the beginning like pieces of a puzzle. You can go as far as the Austro-Hungarian Empire that included regions or entire countries in terms of countries that are a reality today. Austria and Italy - throughout the history of Europe have exchanged regions. France and Germany's example - Alsace and Lorena - at one time part of Germany and now part of France. Britany and Normandy - once part of the British Empire are now part of France. And we could mention many other cases not just in Europe but across the world. At one point Bolivia had costal waters and that was the case until a conflict between Peru, Bolivia and Chile left Bolivia isolated and having to pay a fee to have access to the Pacific Ocean.

When it comes to Palestine we have yet another example of changing borders and changing owners. The history of Palestine is a history of conflicts between empires and between countries. When the Ottoman Empire collapsed many countries were born, one of them Iraq that itself comprises three distinctive regions. For a brief period Palestine was in the hands of the British until partition led to the creation of the State of Israel and fighting continued between Palestinians and newcomers from Europe that continued the process of expansion taking land from within Palestine and from neighbouring countries. How long will the status quo last? Presumably as long as the parties involved are strong enough to maintain such status quo and this is not a guarantee for any lasting peace.

Going back to Europe, Poland keeps asking Germany for war reparations in spite of the fact that much of the Germany that was before World War Two and before World War One was taken over by Poland and this include a huge chunk of Easter Germany including Danzig and Memel. Danzig is now known as Gdansk. The birthplace of Immanuel Kant, Konisberg is now Kaliningrag in what used to be Eastern Prussia. 

We don't know the outcome of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine - another country that was made up with bit and pieces taken from other countries including Poland, Hungary and Russia. In fact, the present conflict is very much the consequence of the way Ukraine was made with Western Ukraine in direct conflict with Eastern Ukraine - one predominantly Polish and Hungarian and the other predominantly Russian. The conflict is a mix of geopolitical divisions and ethnic divisions.

Borders can change and borders will change. So we can expect that there will be conflict along the way and further bloodshed can be guaranteed. Whether China decides to recover what is know today as Taiwan remains to be seen but there is certainly the prospect of yet another conflict as the multipolar world replaces the bipolar world created by World War Two.

Britain: Gun Ho mentality is making a bad situation worse

The crise in Eastern Europe is set to carry on and on and on, increasing the chances of an even worse conflict to occur. Those in charge of dealing with the situation are visibly acting out of their depth and without any real understanding of the consequences of what they are doing.

Mass media are blissfully ignorant in terms of what is involved and keep the propaganda machine alive with a series of headlines that apart from being absolutely pathetic and often misguiding tend to create hatred and animosity.

In the meantime, the range of issues that continue to erode the foundations of the European Union keeps growing. It is just a matter of time when issues related to refugees generate political upheaval in the host countries. Just days ago, Lech Walesa stated that Poland and Hungary should leave the European Union since both countries are losing out because of their membership of the European Union. There are obvious disparities and differences in terms of aims within the European Union. France and Germany have their own approach to the crisis in Eastern Europe with regards to the stances of other EU countries. Unity is in very short supply and the cracks are becoming ever more visible.

While USA and others use Ukraine in a proxy war against the Russian Federation, they know full well that given the cost of a direct confrontation they would not want such direct confrontation. In the meantime, they all agree that China is a much greater threat and China is closely following events in Europe while it prepares itself to recover Chinese territories in Asia. China is no longer the retiscent China of the past. China is more than willing to engage in military conflict and incursions close to Japan and to Australia are much more than posturing. After the shambolic end of military operations in Afghanistan, there is little appetite for what would be a massive military conflict that will involve both Europe and Asia.

In Britain, what is the state of British military capabilities? Britain struggled in Iraq and struggled in Afghanistan being limited now to skirmishes across the Middle East. Britain does not have the manpower it would need for an all-out war that would very likely include the British mainland. It would take 15 minutes for a nuclear missile launched from Kaliningrad to reach London. There has been some research about the impact of a nuclear strike in London, but we must assume that should there be an all-out war all the main British cities will be targetted as a well as military installations, communications, energy production and distribution and we could not discount that there will be acts of sabotage within the United Kingdom.

Henry Kissinger: Why he is right and why he is wrong

 

Henry Kissinger: Why he is right and why he is wrong

With regards to what Kenry Kissinger proposer to get out of the present impasse in Ukraine, there are arguments in favour and arguments against what he proposes.

Sometimes the solution is determined by circumstances on the ground that make any other alternative impossible. If you take North Korea and South Korea as an example, you could say that having North Korea, South Korea and a demilitarised buffer zone in between was the best that could be achieved given the balance of forces on the ground that made any other option unavailable.

With regards to Ukraine, specifically, there are realities on the ground that need to be recognized. Although there is a country called Ukraine with clearly defined geographic limits when it comes to people the situation is pretty blurred. You have areas where Ukrainian elements are the fundamental majority. There are areas when there is a more or less balanced mix of ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians. There are areas where ethnic Russians are the distinct majority. This has been reflected in electoral results long before the present crisis occurred. I was speaking with a Polish lady today and she was telling that her parents were Polish because they were born in Ukraine in regions that used to be part of Poland when they were born. I guess there is the same kind of dilemma for people of many other ethnic backgrounds and nationalities because European borders have been changing and countries that existed at one point no longer exist today. 

There was something called Yugoslavia not long ago. Now, there are several countries that shared a common past for decades that suddenly are no longer part of the same unit. You have got Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia Herzegobina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, et cetera. People that were German by birth because at the time of their birth a given region was part of Germany saw changes first hand when the said region became part of Poland as part of the political arrangements at the end of World War Two. This has happened and is going to continue happening in the future as what we believed to be the status quo - something that would last forever and ever - was transient.

If the idea is to dismantle Ukraine geographically, this might be an alternative but poses many dangers. If the idea is to keep Ukraine geographically as one item this also poses many dangers. In fact, the present crisis did not start in 2022. It actually started in 2014 with all the comings and goings of Ukrainian internal politics. One side of Ukraine wanted to go West and another side of Ukraine did not want to go West. Frictions led to internal conflict, internal conflict led to Civil War and ultimately ended up being a war that went beyond present national boundaries.

Perhaps Henry Kissinger's proposal is to implement in Ukraine a similar path to the one followed by Yugoslavia where different ethnic groups followed different paths. It sounds reasonable, but there are also pitfalls. You would have two major powers side to side with nothing in between. You would have one side of Ukraine very much attached to the West and another side of Ukraine very much attached to the Russian Federation, with huge grievances and mistrust and nothing in between. Even with a buffer zone that it will be very difficult to police and maintain there is no guarantees for a lasting peace.

Another possibility would be to treat the whole of Ukraine as a buffer zone between NATO countries and the Russian Federation. Can this be achieved? In an unstable country like Ukraine, with high levels of corruption, there are no guarantees either that internal operators and external operators will not seek to undermine any agreement made to turn Ukraine into a buffer zone.

For the moment, the only solution is a conflict that will go on and on, a permanent economic disaster, in a country ravaged by war. The next question that needs to be raised is 'Will Ukraine be able to survive as a country or will it finally cease to exist like Yugoslavia?' Neighbouring country have territorial claims as Ukraine was made up of regions that used to belong to neighbouring countries.

 

Until Brexit is completed, there will be no deal

Until Brexit is completed, there will be no deal

A quick look at what is happening in the main EU countries is more than enough to understand that the EU is in no position to negotiate anything. If anything, the EU has to devote all its energies to prevent a meltdown that would lead to the extinction of the EU.

In France, President Macron doesn't seem to be getting things done. It looks like a growing crisis that threaten the very foundation of democracy in France. Showering French citizens with tear gas and water cannons, and engaged in unwarranted acts of violence, Police forces that follow President Macron's orders are turning France into a battlefield. 

In Germany, the sheer idea of having to go cap in hand to ask German taxpayers for more money to subsidise failing economies is a sobering thought for ailing Angela Merkel that knows that she is being watched from inside and from outside the CDU/CSU. She is no longer leader of the ruling coalition very much like Theresa May is no longer leader of the Conservative Party and is very much yesterday's Chancellor.

Events in Austria, Poland, Hungary, Italy and elsewhere are not reassuring either. In Spain, recently elected Members of the European Parliament are not being allowed to join the European Parliament because of the struggle for independence in Catalonia. 

Contenders in the leadership election in the Conservative Party or those in opposition can talk about a deal but it is a deal that no longer exists. It was killed by Parliament and led to the downfall of Theresa May. Most of the world deals with WTO terms and has been doing so for a very long time. The issue is the survival of a protectionist club called European Union (before European Community, earlier Common Market) that almost single-handed led to a debacle across the Developing World when over-production and subsidies caused a dramatic fall of agricultural prices and the creation of massive foreign debt in countries that very much depend on agriculture to make ends meet.

Delivering Brexit is a sine qua non for the Conservative Party. They know that they either deliver Brexit or are replaced by the Brexit Party under a Marxist Prime Minister. This has enormous implications for Britain and for international equilibrium. Whatever is left of the |Special Relationship could come to an end. This is not just the crisis regarding Huawei. This is Huawei and everything else including Britain's membership of NATO.

Britain should seek to preserve the Conservative government by getting Brexit done as a way to prevent a major geopolitical catastrophe.

The Truth is out: Call for EU Armed Forces 'to fight US, Russia and China'

The Truth is out: Call for EU Armed Forces 'to fight US, Russia and China'

After the statement made by French President Macron came the words of German Chancellor Angela Merkel about 'true, real, EU Armed Forces'. What role will NATO play then? President Trump has been demanding and rightly so that all NATO countries pay their fair share in terms of defence expenditure. Now, a country like Germany that pays a lot less than 2% and is regularly suffering shortages managing very badly its own Armed Forces under Chancellor Merkel talking about 'true, real, EU Armed Forces'? Where is the funding going to come from without increasing German expenditure in Defence? And what about the smaller countries, smaller in numbers and smaller in terms of financial resources, how are they going to pay for those 'true, real, EU Armed Forces'?

When you look at the numbers in terms of demographics and resources you will realise that the said 'true, real, EU Armed Forces' are going to run by Germany and France with smaller contributions from other EU countries. With less investment will come less power and this will mean a de-facto concentration of military power in German and French hands with the rest of EU 'doing as they are told'. With economic power and military might, comes total control in Berlin and in Paris. Those under their rule will become not partners on an equal basis but merely colonies, occupied territories.

If any EU country apart from German and France disagree or reject the orders imparted from the centre, will these 'EU Armed Forces' be used to repress national dissent? The EU is travelling along a very dangerous path. The Continent is facing extraordinary challenges. We can extrapolate what happened during the partition of Yugoslavia to see what could happen in Europe as a whole. If Austria, Hungary, Poland, Italy and others refuse to accept immigration policies - for example, will the said countries be forced to accept what they reject not just via EU legal challenges or will military might be used to suppress any resistance?

The way to Hell is paved with good intentions. There is the intention and there is reality. Should such EU Armed Forces be created, who will control them? What mechanisms will be there to protect national interests? In peacetime, EU mandarins are striving to over-rule national resistance. When certain mechanisms are in place, resistance will be futile. Smaller countries will be de-facto colonies. 

Theresa May: Moment of Truth

Theresa May: Moment of Truth

The Moment of Truth is fast approaching, the time when there can be no more wriggling, no more justifications, no more excuses, no more procrastination. It is the time when the Conservative Party will look at the abyss and see Doom on the face. There is no secret about divisions in the Conservative Party. The cards are on the table. Any deal that means for UK to remain attached to the structures of the EU means dependency and would go against what was decided by the British Electorate. The issue is not only if Theresa May will survive as Prime Minister. The issue is if the Conservative Party will survive.

This happens at a time when the Leadership of the Labour Party that has a proven record of treason against the United Kingdom because its association and support for Irish Terrorists stands accused of Anti-Semitism. 

For those who are ideologically favourable to membership of the EU, the rise of what they call Populism and others calls Patriotism is not best kind of kind of news that they could receive. Germany and France are on their way to have real governance. Austria, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, Italy and Sweden have very much recognised the importance of strong National Identity and Hungary amongst them know that Islam is poisonous and a real liability or - to sum up - the Enemy Within that must be neutralised.

With the Rise of Nationalism across Continental Europe, will the so called Remainers still want to remain part of the club?

Jewish Communities across Europe are under threat. They know that the clock is ticking. When a Jewish authority in Germany asked Jewish people not to wear anything that could identify them as Jews he knew exactly what he was talking about. The streets are not safe for Jews. I believe that compared to today's Europe the Europe of the 1930s and 1940s was a safe place.

In the 1930s and 1940s they knew where the danger was.Today, there is danger everywhere. Their sworn enemies have been brought to Europe by the priests of Political Correctness that oblivious to the danger of allowing in thousands upon thousands of Muslims with a Mohammedan agenda opened the floodgates to death. Look at what happens in the Middle East. Look at what happens in Pakistan of all places and you will know what will happen in Europe when they are numerous enough to take over.

There is a deadly cocktail, a ticking bomb. With political divisions and the ongoing Islamic Invasion, we must prepare ourselves to deal with catastrophic social and political events. The speed of change is accelerating.  

 

President Donald Trump visits UK

President Donald Trump visits UK

President Donald Trump is due to arrive in the United Kingdom on July 13th 2018. On the build up to the Presidential visit, the British Broadcasting Corporation who visibly doesn't welcome President Trump has been broadcasting a series of programmes that attack the reputation of the American President given credence to individuals who have made all kinds of accusations of a personal and private nature against President Trump. The timing of the broadcast shows very clearly the animosity of the BBC and a deliberate attempt to promote a climate of confrontation. 

Police Forces in the UK have raised the alert about the potential for civil unrest given the fact that the British public is divided in terms of supporting or opposing President Donald Trump. Despite this, the BBC has continued his very well organised campaign of provocation that will certainly undermine the efforts of Police Forces in the United Kingdom to prevent the unthinkable.

The Mayor of London himself has engaged in provocation by supporting the idea of putting a provocative balloon in the air with the aim of adding logs to the fire. Sadiq Khan has been blatantly unable of dealing with rising crime in London and seems determined to promote crime of a political nature in the streets of the capital city.

All this is happening at a time when the United Kingdom is going through a political process that has heightened tensions. Some members of the public therefore need little encouragement to get involved in acts of violence as a way to show their frustration whatever side of the political arguments they are in. It is therefore advisable that mass media and political authorities don't do anything to make things worse than they already are. We all benefit from peaceful demonstrations as long as they don't become a battlefield.

There are many important issues to talk about. Undoubtedly, what we call Brexit is inextricably linked to the relationship between Britain and the USA. If in an effort to reach an agreement with the EU, Britain were to accept conditions that would not allow Britain to trade freely with the US and with the rest of the world there would be extremely serious repercussions. It goes without say that British public opinion is extremely divided but it must be added that vested interests and ideological stances stand on the way of solutions that would benefit all parties involved.

We are  either all winners or we are all losers. Looking at developments in the continent, it is self-evident that what remains of the European Union is very much disunited. Whether we speak about France, Italy, Greece, Hungary, Austria or Poland - for example - the cracks are plainly visible. The disagreements are of a very serious nature. In Germany, there is a very fluid political situation that could be made even more serious if Germany fails to agree a deal with the United Kingdom. German manufacturers for whom US and Britain are crucially important customers are closely watching developments that could damage German industry leading to mass unemployment at a time when the issue of immigration is leading to a change of the political landscape.

Not everyone of those taking part in demonstrations is fully aware of the whole picture and of the consequences of No Deal. Not many are fully aware that the EU has a lot more to lose if there is No Deal.

   

Snap Election in Germany?

German coalition talks in tatters as FDP walked away from negotiations

Angela Merkel who barely got 26% of the vote in the recent German elections was desperately trying to form a coalition with FDP and the Greens. Immigration and Energy Policies were her undoing. With the Social Democracts in no mood to be members of any coalition, Germany would be heading for yet another Federal Election.

Immigration is a contentious issue in Germany linked to National Security and Public Security and Angela Merkel has made a gigantic mess that led to Alternative für Deutschland entering the Bundestag with 90 seats.

But in reality, the Greens are the ones to blame by calling for a reduction in coal-generated power that could lead to job losses in the energy and manufacturing sector and by campaigning to keep the immigration floodgates open.

Will I receive another letter from Peter Tauber? Most probably not. The German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier could soon have to dissolve the current parliament to have new elections.

During the coalition talks the CDU and the CSU talked about immigration restrictions. I hope Austria, Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic take note of this and especially when EU under Angela Merkel's command took them to court trying to force them to accept more immigrants.

British National Party: What next?

British National Party: What next?

The talk has been that a weakened United Kingdom Independence Party would lead to the rise of the British National Party once again and there is something in the air looking at what is happening to UKIP and what is happening in Nationalists ranks.

Electoral defeat is sometimes an eye opener to show to - at least the grassroots - that division is not conducive to victory. There is a less confrontational approach regarding factions within the Nationalist Movement.

Just a few days ago, Richard Edmonds, who started his political life in the National Front and is back in the National Front after spending quite a long time in the British National Party of which he was at one point Acting Leader - delivered a speech surrounded by a congregation of members of the British National Party.

There is a certain rapport between grassroots of different Nationalist groups and this is critical, especially taking into account that the Leadership of the British National Party is practically invisible. The old hands of the British National Party are still very much at work - as they have always been - while party Leader Adam Walker and Deputy Leader Clive Jefferson are nowhere to be seen.

High ranking former members of the British National Party are now acting as go-between with a myriad of other groups and organisations including National Front and London Forum.

What has changed? British National Party policies were adopted by so called mainstream political parties and many of the issues raised by the British National Party are no longer taboo. What is more, many of the issues are the core of the debate in Continental Europe. Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary were taken to court by the EU because their governments opposed flood immigration and hold strong views regarding economic migrants that some class as asylum seekers and refugees.

Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary also raised issues about the cultural and religious background of those entering the European Union - something the British National Party talked about practically from the very beginning.

Therefore, although the stigma regarding membership of the British National Party persists, British National Party policies are now very much mainstream. Even Trevor Phillips, former foe of the British National Party, is saying what the BNP has said all along and here is an example of it:

"Trevor Phillips attacks political correctness for failing to tackle Muslim child sex gang"

The World has changed. Britain has changed. There is growing discontent against Political Correctness and the British National Party finds himself vindicated after being persecuted for telling the truth about what now has become public knowledge.

Having said that, in order to re-invigorate itself to play once again a protagonist role in British politics, the British National Party would need to change the way it operates and most importantly would have to go for a change of Leadership, a Leadership that has been practically invisible for far too long.

Although no one has expressed openly that they are ready to rock the boat, discontent with the present Leadership is all too obvious. In the past, Midlands would have been the most important region of the British National Party. Nowadays, London is the most important region after Midlands was gradually dismantled.

Mike Jones, Paul Sturdy and John Clarke - long standing organisers - have kept the movement alive. Financial dependency is no longer what it used to be and local branches are very much self-sufficient.
The bone of contention is that Central Office (the top administrating unit) still has the power to nominate candidates and can use disciplinary procedures as a deterrent.

Vince Cable - once again Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament and now Lib Dem Leader - spoke about the need for a new centrist party. The same applies to Nationalism where it has become increasingly obvious that a new political force could rise joining all the pieces of the Nationalist puzzle.

Hungarian Prime Minister calls migrants entering Europe poisonous

Looking at events in Europe, one can certainly agree with the Hungarian Prime Minister that something is going very wrong.

When we were still trying to recover from shock horror because of terrorist attacks in France and in Germany, an Catholic Priest had his throat cut off during mass at a small town in northern France.

The attack against Père Jacques Hamel very much represents what Europe as a whole is facing right now.

The Hungarian Prime Minister is quite straightforward when he says 'whoever needs migrants can take them, but don't force them on us, we don't need them'.

Everything follows Angela Merkel's unilateral statement opening the floodgates without consulting other EU countries and her attempts to force countries that have not been asked about immigration.

Later on, Angela Merkel threatened EU countries trying to force them to accept quotas. The situation got so bad that Bavaria told Angela Merkel that they would send immigrants to Berlin.