Början på ett mediakrig om mångkulturen?

Outwardly, Merkel held a low profile and devoted herself to research in physics with her new husband, Professor Joachim Sauer. He was a leading light in the field of quantum physics. With Sauer’s prominence, the pair of Sauer and Merkel were allowed to travel to the West for conferences from 1986 and at one point stayed in the West and did research for six months. Merkel also met her grandmother in Hamburg on a private trip. For a childless couple active in important scientific research, this opportunity to travel was very rare.

For a long time Merkel denied that she had ever been to the West before the fall of the Berlin Wall of 1989. It was only when confronted with hard evidence of her and her husband’s Western voyages by biographers and journalists that she recovered these memories. For someone hailed by admirers as having a mind like a computer, this indicates that she has not always been honest and told the truth. Travel to the West was a favor only offered to particularly reliable Reisekader (literally Travel Squad). This was a privileged minority required to provide written reports of where they had been, who they met, and what they discussed. No reports of Merkel’s Western voyages have been found in the Stasi archives since the fall of the wall.

And there is at least one more document missing. A Ph.D. student in the GDR was not judged only by her specialist knowledge; political reliability was also important in order to be approved. Therefore, before the dissertation, they would write a fifty-page essay, Sozialistische Lebensweise (The Socialist Way of Life). The Ph.D. student would describe her own attitude toward socialism and the system. Merkel’s essay has never been found, despite the fact that many journalists have tried to obtain it.

Like any moral order, globalism has a driving force behind it and that force is the source of its power. In the case of globalism that force is money. For proof of this I recommend two sources, one long, one short, that provide a peak behind the curtain of major globalist entities. One is Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins, in which Perkins, an economist, details his work for several major globalist organizations including the World Bank, IMF, USAID and a few Fortune 500 companies. Through his travails, the reader learns that the true purpose of these organizations is to engage in economic colonization under the guise of morality. Phrases like “human rights,” “tools for independence,” and “empower towards self-governance” are thrown around, but ultimately the goal, according to Perkins, is to indebt as many people in as many places as possible in order to control them. The second source is an article by Thomas Frank titled “Nor a Lender Be” which illustrates the same phenomenon with regard to the Clinton Foundation and Goldman Sachs. Frank attends an event where Hillary Clinton unveils a supposedly world-saving Goldman Sachs micro-lending program which will “empower” female entrepreneurs across Africa. Frank, a progressive himself, suddenly realizes the whole thing is a charade, nothing more than a celebration of colonial power under the guise of moral superiority, essentially the White Man’s Burden all over again.
In both sources, the pattern is the same. Debt cloaked in goodness. Control disguised as protection. Unfettered access to labor framed as the mission to save the disenfranchised. Without any spiritual reasons to justify their dominance, the controllers must find something to explain it, and that justification has become globalism. If you take a look around, whether it’s at Superbowl commercials or the mayors of sanctuary cities, the message is consistent: we are in control because we are beneficent, we are beneficent because we are compassionate, and if you define compassion differently than we do, you are evil.

Like Christianity, the globalist religion enforces a morality that helps it survive. Where Christianity relied on so-called “traditional gender roles”—basically monogamous heterosexuality—globalism favors individual sexual exploration. The reason for this is because, where Christianity needed reproduction and self-restriction, globalism needs labor and self-indulgence. Work hard and play hard is another way of saying labor extreme and consume extreme. Globalism wants you, whether you’re male or female, to be working constantly to gain and spend as much money as possible, which will in turn drive up revenues, which will in turn drive up the equity-based incomes of the controllers of the system. The biggest threat to globalism is the elements of human happiness that don’t cost money—family, spirituality, free access to nature—while Christianity was overly dependent on those same elements. Globalism loves gender fluidity because it separates individuals from conglomerative values that threaten its viability.

This is why seemingly everywhere you look there is a globalist entity supporting feminism, gay rights, and transgender rights. Again, this is not problematic in and of itself. There are many reasons (e.g. individual freedom, preventing overpopulation) why supporting gender fluidity is good. However, any time the governing structure creates the right for itself to actively interfere with the natural right of a parent to socialize their child as they see fit, it turns the corner into tyranny. The Ontario law approaches jus primae noctis, in which a feudal lord had the right to have sex with a peasant’s wife the night before marriage. The excuse for this horrific policy was not “I’m a tyrannical lord and I get to do what I want” or “My genes are better than yours so she should be having my baby instead.” No, it was rooted in some excuse about divine right and morality. Tyranny always comes packaged in morals.